Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Demobilisation

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the promised speed-up in the rate of release of the accountant trade and equipment trade; whether he will give an assurance that the release target aimed at for those in these trades will be reached by June; and how many men have been remustered into these trades from other trades since September, 1945.

Major Wyatt: asked the" Under secretary of State for Air what is the latest position with regard to the deferment of clerks accounting.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): Equipment assistants are this month three groups behind the general level of release for most airmen, but the gap comes down to one group next month. The position is not so good for airmen in the accounting trades, who are five groups behind at present and will be six according to the latest forecast for May. This is most disappointing for all the men concerned; precisely because their work is essential to the general speed-up in release, they cannot at present share the advantage themselves. There is, however, absolutely no question of stopping their release or of going back on the May forecast. While we are doing our best to narrow the gap, we know that there are still difficult problems to overcome—for example, the introduction of the new pay code next July—and so I cannot give any promise at present. We are ready to train every suitable man for accounting duties, and since the beginning of last September up to the end of February the output, including recruits, has been over 3,500. We have also trained about 5,500 men and women as equipment assistants over the same period.

Captain Chetwynd: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air when meteorological officers of age and service Group 27 will be released; and to what extent the release of meteorological officers scheduled for February and March has been cancelled.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what release group of meteorological officers does he anticipate will be reached by June next.

Mr. Strachey: Junior meteorological officers of the Royal Air Force in Group 27 will be released in June; from Flight-Lieutenant upwards the release group for meteorological officers will be 25 in June. No release of meteorological officers for February and March has been cancelled. We were not able to confirm our advance promulgation at the time of our action promulgation, but I am able to do so now.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether applications for release under Class B are dealt with summarily by commanding officers; or whether each application is dealt with by his Department.

Mr. Strachey: We deal with all applications for Class B release in the Air Ministry. Commanding officers have no power either to make or to refuse an offer of release in Class B.

Mr. Langford-Holt: It I bring to the hon. Gentleman's notice a case which has been dealt with summarily by a commanding officer, will he look further into the matter?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Turton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many R.A.F. medical officers are specialists, and on that account frozen from the operation of the Class A release scheme and what steps he is taking to replace these officers by civilian specialists who have no previous service in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Strachey: There are 134 Royal Air Force medical officers filling specialist posts. So far, we have told those who would otherwise be due for release up to the end of May—74 in all—that we shall have to keep them on under the Military Necessity clause. The Central Medical War Committee is calling up specialists, for a period of 18 months, who have not yet served in the Armed Forces and who are over 30 years of age, and we trust that we shall receive a sufficient allocation of these new entrants tr. enable us to release as many as possible of our own specialists. We are also accepting volunteers aged 40 and over for a similar period of service.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Central Medical War Committee that it is important that they should reach an early conclusion in this matter of replacing these specialists, as these men have been held frozen for a very long time?

Mr. Strachey: We agree it is a case of real difficulty, and we shall put in a very strong plea for a good allocation.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider the treatment for release purposes of R.A.F. personnel who have been serving in the G.D. branch and are transferred to the A. and S.D. branch on account of injuries sustained in flying accidents, and who consequently have the date of their release deferred by reason of the difference in treatment for release purposes between personnel of the same group in these two branches.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The rule to which the hon. Member refers has applied throughout the Royal Air Force ever since the beginning of the release scheme, and it would not be practicable—or indeed fair —to change it now.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes these transfers cause a delay of up to two months in the date of release of the individuals concerned; and that when they have made arrangements to take up a civilian job on their original expectation the result is not only disappointment, but actual damage to the individual concerned?

Mr. Strachey: We try to avoid making these transfers at all near the date of release, but some such transfers are inevitable in order to even out the rate of release as between trades. That is the justification for -them. I quite agree that they result in disappointment, but I feel that it would be worse not to make them.

Personal Cases

Mr. Osborne: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a reply can be expected to the letter of nth January, 1946, sent by the hon. Member for Louth, respecting 1775195 L.A.C. Plant, whose immediate release was requested because his father had a stroke and is unable to work on his farm; since application for the son's release is supported by a doctor's certificate, the W.A.E.C. and the N.F.U., if he will immediately release this man; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the efficiency of his Department in dealing with Members' letters.

Mr. Strachey: As the hon. Member has been informed, we have been able to grant this airman an immediate 28 days' agricultural leave. So he is at work again on his farm. We are ready to consider full compassionate release, but the evidence submitted was insufficient. Delay has been due to the fact that the airman, although matters were explained to him, had not taken any steps to obtain additional evidence.

Mr. Osborne: With regard to the second part of my Question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Press keep telling our constituents to write to us about their problems, and it makes Members look fools when they cannot get answers from Ministers in less than 11 weeks?

Mr. Strachey: In this case the delay was due to the fact that the airman himself was a very long time in producing the additional evidence. It is a very difficult case. We cannot get the sponsoring departments to support Class B release, and on the evidence so far submitted there is no valid case for Class C release. I really cannot take responsibility for the delay in this case.

Mr. Osborne: This is not the first question —

Mr. Speaker: Delay in answering letters is being raised on the Adjournment shortly, and we cannot anticipate the Debate by questions now.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a reply may be expected to a letter from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, dated 22nd December, 1945, regarding 1350308 Corporal Craston, G. W. E.

Mr. Strachey: This was a case of considerable complexity, since a new ruling which affected the matter had been introduced, But the hon. Member will now have received my letter of 7th March.

Surplus Hangars

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many R.A.F. hangars are now redundant; and how many of them have been passed over to the Board of Trade for disposal.

Mr. Strachey: We have informed the Board of Trade that 387 hangars are no longer required by the Royal Air Force. The Board of Trade allocates the hangars to various Departments for storage.

Mr. Shephard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I addressed a Question to the Board of Trade on this particular point, and that it has been handed over to the Ministry of Works? Can the hon. Gentleman say which Department is dealing with it?

Mr. Strachey: My information is that the Board of Trade is the Department responsible for allocating.

Mr. Shephard: Have these hangars actually been handed over?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, it is analogous to our declaring surplus procedure. We have informed the Board of Trade that we do not want the hangars, and the

Board of Trade is allocating them for storage purposes.

Major John Morrison: . Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend, and it took four months to get a very unsatisfactory reply?

Mr. Strachey: That is the position. We cannot be responsible for the allocation, because I understand it is the Board of Trade which allocates. It certainly is not we.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is not this another example of lack of co-ordination between Departments?

Mr. Speaker: May I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to study the evidence given to the Procedure Committee by the acting Leader of the Opposition?

Airfields (Hay Crop)

Mr. S. Shephard: asked the Under secretary of State for Air if he will allow a. hay crop to be taken off those parts of R.A.F. airfields which cannot be cultivated owing to flying commitments.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

C.M.F. (Leave)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Under secretary of State for Air when it is pro posed to commence regular leave by overland route for men in the C.M.F. who have still some time to serve.

Mr. Strachey: Fourteen days' home leave is granted to members of the Royal Air Force in the Central Mediterranean Forces who have completed 12 months of their overseas tour, provided they have at least six months more of the tour to serve.

Temporary Constables (Discharge)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider his decision to discharge temporary Air Ministry constables to enable R.A.F. personnel to take over their duties at R.A.F. stations and to suspend such discharges until the general man power shortage has materially eased.

Mr. Strachey: The Air Ministry constabulary is a civilian police force, and precisely because of the general manpower shortage we are reducing as rapidly


as possible the number of civilians working for the Royal Air Force. There is no question of establishing Service posts to take over the work of these constables.

Oulton Airfield, Norfolk (Release)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will facilitate the early release of Oulton airfield, Norfolk, so that this extensive area can revert to food production.

Mr. Strachey: We are using this airfield for storing aircraft, and I am afraid that we shall need it beyond this ploughing season, but we shall not need it permanently.

Deenethorpe Camp, Upper Benefield (Conditions)

Mr. Champion: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the conditions at the camp at Deenethorpe, Upper Benefield, at which bad conditions are reported, with lavatories beyond description, cooking bad, the cookhouse intended for 600 made to serve well over 1,000, and training done on the perimeter regardless of weather conditions.

Mr. Strachey: The station is at present about 30 per cent. above its usual strength, owing to its temporary use for the training of recruits. This will end in about two months time. Living and working conditions have sometimes been rather difficult during the bad weather. The standard of messing is said to be good. However, I am having further inquiries made.

Drivers (Questioning)

Mr. Bowden: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air what persons, other than civilian or service police, have authority to question R.A.F. drivers as to their duties and destination.

Mr. Strachey: No one else, except of course their superior officers or N.C.Os. acting in the course of their duties. If, however, my hon. Friend has in mind the questions apparently put to three R.A.F. drivers in Palace Yard last week by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Squadron-Leader Sir G. Fox), I am delighted that the drivers answered these questions courteously, though they

were no doubt quite unauthorised. For the drivers' answers should have satisfied the hon. and gallant Member that the cars were being used for the right and proper purpose of fetching Ministers from this House, although, as I said in the House on 5th December, we are hoping that this work willbe put on a civilian basis very soon now.

Surplus Coal Stocks

Major Wise: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air what action is being taken to dispose of surplus stocks of coal at present lying on R.A.F. or U.S.A.A.F. stations which have closed or are closing down; and if arrangements will be made for these stocks to be sold to augment supplies for civilian needs in the vicinity.

Mr. Strachey: Surplus stocks of coal at R.A.F. and U.S.A.A.F. stations are, in the first instance, redistributed to other R.A.F. stations within a fifty mile radius. Normal deliveries to the latter stations are then cancelled. Any remaining surplus is then reported to the regional officer of the Ministry of Fuel and Power for disposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission Clubs (British Officers)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air, what action is being taken against the senior R.A.F. officer or officers implicated in book-keeping irregularities and extensive black market transactions at the Control Commission clubs at Detmold and Vinsebeck, which have recently been under investigation by the public safety branch of the Control Commission's Internal Affairs and Communications Division.

Mr. Strachey: An inter-Service court of inquiry has been convened, and at present I can only say that certain members of the Royal Air Force have been relieved of their association with these clubs.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of the damage caused to British prestige among German civilians at Detmold and Vinsebeck by the extensive black market transactions engaged in by senior British officers at the Control Commission clubs; and if he will give an assurance that attempts by such officers to impede full


investigation of this matter by officials of the Public Safety Branch of the Control Commission's Internal Affairs and Communications Division have been, and will be, resisted.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): An inter-Service Court of Inquiry is now investigating these alleged irregularities. I am informed that investigation by the Public Safety Branch has not been impeded, and any attempt to do so would, of course, be resisted.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been attempts to do so, because the people concerned, as in the R.A.F. Regent's Park case. took care to implicate a number of senior officers— quite innocently, in the first instance— by giving them small presents of coffee and so on, and will he look into that?

Mr. Hynd: As I have said, my information to date is that there have been no attempts at intimidating or impeding the Public Safety Branch, but the whole question is now under consideration.

Non-German Displaced Persons

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Poles, how many Germans expelled from Poland and how many non-German displaced persons, respectively, there are in the British zone in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: There are some 326,000 Polish displaced persons in the British zone of Germany. The movement of German nationals from Poland to the British zone has only just commenced; the only figure available is that some 4,300 have arrived in Schleswig Holstein. In addition to the Polish displaced persons there are approximately 119,000 other non-German displaced persons in the British zone.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: In view of the serious food situation in our zone in Germany, will the hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made to restore those displaced persons to their homeland, and also whether the expulsion of Germans from Poland can temporarily be suspended?

Mr. Hynd: The progress has been very considerable. I have not figures available, but considerably over 1,500,000 have been repatriated already, and the progress, of

course, must slow down as we are coming to what is regarded as the hard core. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I think the answer has been given already in reply to an hon. Member on the other side.

Mr. Stokes: In reference to my hon. Friend's remark that these expulsions are continuing, may I ask if he has read the outrageous reports of what is going on? Will he make representations in the proper quarters to see that the expulsions are carried out humanely, or else stopped?

Mr. Hynd: I have no knowledge of the outrages to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I can give him the fullest assurance that the conditions under which these expulsions are carried out, and the reception so far as the British zone in Germany is concerned, are being rigidly adhered to.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the Poles had been repatriated to Poland?

Mr. Hynd: No, Sir.

Immigration

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to suspend all further immigration into the British zone in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Organised transfers of population to and from the British zone depend in general on terms agreed by the four occupying Powers. The present intake from Poland is governed by a later arrangement, the modification or suspension of which would have to be agreed between the Governments concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that it is not possible adequately to feed the existing population of the zone, is the Chancellor taking steps to obtain the necessary consent to a suspension of this immigration?

Mr. Hynd: The provisioning of the British zone is obviously a very difficult question, raising quite a number of problems. I can assure the hon. Member that all these considerations are being very closely and urgently examined. The proposal that he has submitted is, of course, among the questions which will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Scottish Air Services (Administration)

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if it is proposed to form a Scottish airways division of the projected British-European Airways Corporation; and, if so, will the operational management of Scottish air services be left entirely in the hands of Scotsmen resident in Scotland.

Lieut. -Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is proposed to establish, in Scotland, a purely Scottish organisation to administer air services, aircraft construction and the international airport, with freedom to make airline agreements with other countries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): With permission, I will answer Question No. 21 and Question No. 24 together.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I must withhold my permission. My Question is fundamentally and very substantially different from Question No. 21.

Mr. Thomas: There will be a Scottish division of British European Airways which, as part of that corporation, will be responsible for the administration of air services within and radiating from Scotland, and there will be a Scottish Advisory Committee to advise the corporation. There will also be a Scottish regional headquarters to administer all transport aerodromes in Scotland, including the international airport. The making of agreements with other countries for all services will remain in the hands of the Government. Questions on aircraft construction should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this will not lead to Scotsmen being displaced from principal managerial posts elsewhere?

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first satisfactory answer we have had on Scottish aviation since the Government came into power?

Belfast-Prestwick Service

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that the air service between Belfast and Prestwick is now operating twice daily and carrying 450 passengers a week; that an additional allocation of petrol would enable it to operate five times daily and reduce fares below third class fares by rail and boat between Glasgow and Belfast; and if he will consider a further allocation of petrol for this purpose.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: .I am aware of the present operating capacity of this air service. I am unable to support an application for an increased allocation of petrol, but arrangements are being made to augment the direct Glasgow-Belfast air service.

Foreign Operators (Prestwick)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is now able to make a statement as to whether foreign operators were refused permission to land at Prestwick.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Yes, Sir. No foreign operator has been refused permission to land at Prestwick.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr.Speaker. Perhaps you, Sir, misheard me when I withheld my permission from the hon. Gentleman with regard to Question No. 24.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member said it was the only satisfactory answer he had received.

Sir T. Moore: That was merely an interim commendation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will perhaps put his question down again if he is not satisfied, and we" will consider the matter.

Rineanna Airport

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what degree air traffic to this country is likely to be affected by the decision to make Rineanna, in Eire, a free airport; and whether there is any proposal to establish a similar free airport in this country.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The airport at Rineanna is used in the main as a refuelling point for aircraft in transit and is thus in a substantially different position from international airports situated in this country. The Customs regulations in force here are designed to reduce to a minimum formalities in respect of through traffic, and I am satisfied that air traffic to this country will not be adversely affected by the decision to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Americans have adopted Rineanna as a terminal point, whereas he referred to it as a refuelling point?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Rineanna would not generate or receive much traffic on its own account. It just happens to be the nearest airport to the United States.

Crashproof Fuel Tanks

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is intended to insist on the use of Henderson crash proof fuel tanks in civil aircraft, the design of which is subject to the approval of his Ministry.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir.

Newspapers (Air Editions)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether air editions of news papers in bulk enjoy any priority over mails for the Forces.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. Mails for His Majesty's Forces are accorded priority over air editions of newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' FAMILIES)

Major Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many passages he is granting in March to the families of Government servants returning to Hong Kong.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The housing situation 11; Hong Kong makes it inadvisable for families to leave this country for the Colony until there is definite accommodation available for them. Accordingly, passage facilities for dependants are

not, as a rule, granted until the husband has arrived in Hong Kong and has satisfied himself that suitable accommodation is available for them. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that any passages will be granted to wives and families of Government officers during March.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

War Damage Contributions

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the arrangements for ceasing to collect war damage contributions are the same in the Colonies as in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Creech Jones: The only Colony in which war damage contributions are now payable is Malta. Under the Malta War Damage Ordinance, 1943, contributions are payable by 10 half-yearly instalments, the first of which became due in 1943, the last becoming due in 1947.

Tin Prices

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the price of Malayan and Nigerian tin is now only £300 per ton as against £422 per ton for South African tin, £350 per ton for Belgian Congo tin and £345 per ton for Bolivian tin; what is the justification for this difference in price; and whether he will initiate early discussions with a view to obtaining a uniform and satisfactory world price for this commodity in view of its importance to the British Colonial Empire.

Mr. Creech Jones: The price of tin in Malaya was fixed after consultation with expert opinion on the spot. No price has yet been settled for current supplies of Nigerian tin. In regard to the future of tin prices generally, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I would add that according to my information the figures quoted by the hon. Member in respect of other territories are not on a comparable basis with those quoted for Malaya and Nigeria.

Mr. Gammans: Would the hon. Gentleman consult with the tin producers, so as. to get a price which is in some way related to the conditions, in view of the damage done to the Malayan tin mines, and will the Government see to it that they do not deliberately throw away a valuable source of dollar exchange?

Mr. Creech Jones: That matter will be noted, of course, in the discussions now going on.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the House who fixes these prices? Is it the international tin cartel or His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, these prices are determined by the Government in consultation with expert opinion on the spot.

Mr. Stokes: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by expert opinion?

Mr. Creech Jones: Various interests and administrative people who are responsible for the territory.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE ORANGES (PACKING)

Major Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what methods of packing the surplus orange crop in Pales tine are being employed other than timber, for example, coconut matting or string bags, so that it may be exported to this country; and what will happen to the surplus crop if it is not exported to this country.

Mr. Creech Jones: Oranges require careful packing, protection and ventilation during the voyage from Palestine to this country. The use of substitutes for timber for packing, notably aluminium, and steel mesh cases has been investigated, but so far has not offered sufficient prospects of success to make their use immediately feasible. The authorities here would not be prepared to accept the degree of wastage that would result from packing in string bags or coconut matting. The Palestine Citrus Marketing Board who are the responsible authority will consider how to dispose of any un exportable surplus of oranges, if it arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR (CLOVE TREES DISEASE)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the effect of the disease known as '' Sudden death '' on the clove trees in Zanzibar; what percentage of the trees is affected; and what steps are being taken by research, and otherwise, to deal with this disease.

Mr. Creech Jones: The effect of the disease is that of a general wilt. Only a

few days elapse from the time that the first obvious symptoms appear until the tree is dead. The estimated average annual loss of trees is about 10,000, representing just under one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the estimated clove trees in Zanzibar. Experiments on manurial and moisture requirements are being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, and in collaboration with scientists in this country the mineral nutrition aspect is being investigated. Experience shows that affected areas can be successfully replanted, and large Government nurseries are maintained from which seedlings are readily available for the regeneration of these areas.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people attribute the onset of this disease to the change of Government in this country?

Mr. W. J.Brown: Might I ask whether there is any affinity between the symptoms of this disease as read by the hon. Gentleman and the experience which happened to the Tory Party last July?

Mr. Speaker: I repeat the advice that I have just given about supplementary questions and the evidence of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (SYRIAN LANDOWNERS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the number of Syrians resident in Accra; the area of land in and around the township which they own; and what restrictions there are on the holding of land by aliens in the Gold Coast.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governor of the Gold Coast to supply this information, and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (MASAI TRIBE)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused in the administration of the Masai tribe in Kenya and Tanganyika by the fact that the tribe is divided by the inter-territorial boundary; and whether he will examine


the desirability of realigning the boundary so as to bring the whole tribe under one administration.

Mr. Creech Jones: No instances of inconvenience in connection with the administration of this area have recently been brought to my notice, and in practice the administrative authorities on either side of the inter-territorial boundary co-operate to the fullest extent possible for the purpose of eliminating any such difficulties. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member's suggestion in the second part of his Question, and I am aware that in the case of certain territories boundary lines pay insufficient regard to ethnological considerations, but there are, however, considerable practical difficulties in the way of accepting this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Maclay: asked the Prime Minister(1) what arrangements now exist for regular consultation between His Majesty's Government and Dominion Governments on matters of major importance affecting the Commonwealth as a whole, and
(2) What arrangements now exist for consultation and the exchange of information between the various Departments of His Majesty's Government and the equivalent Departments of Dominion Governments when subjects are under consideration, decisions on which will materially affect all or any of the Dominions.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It would not be possible, within the limits of a reply to a Question, to give a detailed account of the system of communication and consultation with the Dominions on matters of common concern. The arrangements have been described in previous statements both in this House and in another place, and the hon. Member may be assured that there is full exchange of information and views on all questions of general policy. The normal procedure is direct communication between the Governments, but there are other valuable methods of consultation including discussion between Prime Ministers or Ministers of the respective Governments, between United Kingdom Ministers and

Dominion High Commissioners in London, and between United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions and Dominion Ministers. As regards individual United Kingdom Departments, there are various arrangements for liaison with corresponding Dominion Departments and in some cases standing bodies on which all the Governments are represented. In addition, where necessary, conferences are arranged on particular subjects, either in the United Kingdom or in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Maclay: While I thank the Prime Minister for his very full reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that these arrangements really are producing satisfactory results, and whether full advantage will be taken of the forthcoming Dominions Conference to discuss the matter in detail, in view of its very great importance?

The Prime Minister: I was myself Secretary of State for the Dominions at one time, and I am satisfied that there was very full consultation, which continues up to the present time. I am hoping that the conference with the Prime Ministers will be extremely useful in forwarding the ends the hon. Member has in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND NATIONALISATION

Mr. Kirk-wood: asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to nationalise the land of Britain without further delay, in view of the fact that the difficulty of getting land is the chief obstacle to the speedy building of houses for the people, and that the cost of purchasing the necessary land makes the building unreasonably expensive.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but a Bill to provide a more speedy procedure for acquiring land is now before the House. Meanwhile powers for compulsory acquisition of land required for housing already exist and the Government do not accept the suggestion that difficulty in getting land is the chief obstacle to the speedy building of houses. So far as cost is concerned, the land compulsorily acquired for housing is acquired at the 1939 value by virtue of Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that in many cases land is being requisitioned which would be of great value for


agriculture, and is it not desirable that this step should be taken in order to provide land for houses and at the same time have the best land for agriculture?

The Prime Minister: Care is taken in land planning work generally to see that a proper division is made between land fit for agriculture and land used for building. I do not think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would accelerate matters.

Mr. Stokes: While being in complete sympathy with the intention of the questioner, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bear in mind, in considering this matter, that there is another most efficacious way of arriving at the same conclusion, namely, by putting a comprehensive tax on site values?

Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Prime Minister believe that '' A robber band has seized our land "?

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Prime Minister aware that enough land has been purchased up to the present time to fulfil the building programme for the next two years?

Hon. Members: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT POWERS (CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for improving the relationship between the Big Three Powers, he will take the initiative in suggesting a further meeting of their leaders, bearing in mind the successes obtained in the past at such meetings.

The Prime Minister: I am ready to adopt any means likely to improve relations between the Great Powers, but I cannot commit myself any further at present.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the reports in the Press to-day, wherein it is stated that the American Secretary of State, Mr. James Byrnes, has suggested a meeting such as I have referred to in my Question, will the Prime Minister review his answer?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have not seen those Press reports.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a large part of the human misery with which Europe is now afflicted dates from the decisions taken at Potsdam, Teheran and Yalta?

Mr. Chamberlain: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel that no meeting of this kind would be of much or any use until we have clarified our policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Pacific, particularly?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Carbonated Drinks (Label)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider making it compulsory for manufacturers of carbonated drinks to display their names on the bottles at present bearing only the label of S.D.I.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): In fairness to those soft drinks manufacturers whose factories have been closed as a result of the concentration of this industry, operating firms must continue to sell their products under anonymous labels as prescribed by the Soft Drinks Order.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Lady agree that this single label principle does now lead to dishonest manufacturers getting away with a lot of shortcomings?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I do not, because the label bears the approved code marks which are recognised; and, therefore, we can identify the manufacturer.

Grain Allocations (Brewers and Distillers)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what is the total amount of each variety of food used in 1945 by the brewery and distillery industries; and whether it is his intention to utilise any of this supply to meet the present food shortage.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 21st February to the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and on 6th March to the hon. Members for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll) and for Clapham (Mr. Battley) of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is widespread apprehension over the existence of the waste of this food, particularly in view of the starvation throughout the world, and will she consider allocating some of it to some useful purpose?

Dr. Summerskill: When the hon. Member has read the answers to which I have referred him, he will find we are no longer allocating grain to distillers and, therefore, the production of whisky has ceased for the time being. [Hon. Members: "Shame "] We are reviewing the position of the brewers.

Imported Staple Foodstuffs

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Food what staple foodstuffs can now be imported at a landed cost substantially below the price now being paid by his Department for comparable home grown produce.

Dr. Summerskill: The staple foodstuffs which can now be imported at a landed costsubstantially below the price now being paid for comparable home grown produce are shell eggs, meat, bacon and sugar.

Rice Stocks, Siam (Allocations)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Food whether every practical means will be adopted to ship the rice stocks in Siam to meet the urgent needs of India; and if he will give an assurance that no rice from Siam shall be despatched East ward untilthe demands of India are satisfied.

Dr. Summerskill: Rice is subject to allocation by the Combined Food Board, and, accordingly, all supplies which can be made available for export from Siam are placed at the disposal of the Board for allocation, according to need, amongst the various claimants, of which one is India. It is not possible, therefore, to give the assurance desired by the hon. Member, since it will be necessary for the Board, having regard to the overall supply position, to allocate some part of the rice available for export from Siam, to countries other than India, e.g., Hong Kong, Malaya, British Borneo and China, all of which are claimants upon world supplies. The rice requirements of India have, however, been submitted to the Combined Food Board and have the full support of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that owing to the hold-up in the decision the total amount of rice which will become available will be much less because buyers are being held up at the export ports and are not able to get up country to buy rice?

Dr. Summerskill: We are aware that there is a big deficit, and I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is trying to expedite matters.

Sir S. Reed: Will the Minister take urgent steps for the procurement of this rice, which is held up in Siam because of the lack of confidence in the currency, and because of prejudice against disgorging this rice pending reparations?

Dr. Summerskill: We are aware of that, and we are doing everything possible to encourage merchants to disgorge their rice.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to alleviate the points position in Aberdeen and on the North-East coast of Scotland during the winter, at least regarding vitamin supplying syrups needed by all, but especially by children; and secure that a greater quantity be made available in the shops of that area.

Dr. Summerskill: The North-Eastern Food Division of Scotland is receiving its appropriate share of all points rationed foods, including syrup. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot make special supplies available for this area only.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Lady realise that fresh green vegetables which produce vitamin "C" have a short season in the North-East, and will she bear that in mind in making allocations to the North-East?

Dr. Summerskill: I was assuming that the hon. Member's Question referred to syrup.

Retail Grocers (Points)

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Food (1) whether he is aware of the hardship caused to retail grocers by the delay of 10 to 12 weeks in his Department in considering PCL 7 applications; and whether he will take steps to reduce this delay;
(2) whether he is aware that the public is being deprived of foodstuffs owing to


the delay by his Department in considering the applications of retail grocers for a review of their points capital position; and whether he will accelerate the consideration of these applications so that sufficient goods may be available for the public in retail grocers' shops.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that owing to the number of applications received in the latter part of 1945 some delay occurred in reviewing under the P.C.L. 7 procedure the points capital of the applicants. That delay has now been reduced to the minimum required for the work involved. The public has not suffered from shortages of points foods on account of the delay.

Holiday Resorts

Wing-Commander Robinson: the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the demands which will be made on the supplies of foodstuffs in holiday resorts in the coming season by visitors; and what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of both rationed and unrationed food will be available for bona fide residents in holiday resorts during the coming holiday season.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

My right hon. Friend proposes to take this year action similar to that which proved successful lastyear, when the only complaints from permanent residents arose not from a shortage of supplies but from the shopping difficulties caused by inadequate staff in the shops. These staff shortages are gradually being remedied as further manpower becomes available. The procedure adopted for the adjustment of supplies last year and which will be followed again this year is for local Food Officers to consult with local interests in the formulation of estimates of the probable influx of visitors into the principal holiday resorts during the various holiday periods. These estimates are communicated to the wholesalers in order that they may adjust the supply of unrationed foods to the changes in population. The supply of rationed foods is adjusted by the issue of supplementary permits which local Food Officers are authorised to issue at very

short notice, and by a procedure which permits retailers to buy supplies in advance of estimated requirements. The supply of points food is also increased by the allocation of additional points credit to food retailers which enable them to purchase the additional points rationed food necessary to meet the anticipated demand. Persons paying day trips to holiday resorts, particularly at Easter, Whitsun and August Bank Holiday will, nevertheless, be well advised to take sandwiches or a picnic meal with them unless they have made arrangements in advance to take their meals with friends or at a catering establishment.

One-Man Businesses (Release)

Mr. G. Lang: asked the Minister of Food how many applications for release on the grounds of ownership of one-man businesses have been recommended by the Manchester divisional food office; and how many refused from the inception of the scheme to 28th February.

Dr. Summerskill: Out of 260 applications, 40 have been recommended for release under Class B. A substantial proportion of the balance obtained release on compassionate grounds under Class C arrangements

Mr. Lang: Does the hon. Lady really think that that is a satisfactory proportion? Can she say if the recent change in personnel in Manchester means that there will be a little more sympathetic consideration given to these cases?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Member that we cannot release men on compassionate grounds. That is a matter for the Services. All one-man businesses do not necessarily indicate that the one man concerned must come out on industrial grounds

Australian Supplies

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the confusion felt in Australia on account of the conflicting announcements of his Department regarding the need for additional food supplies from Australia; and if he will make a clear statement indicating the needs of this country and the machinery agreed between his Department and the Australian Government for the collection and despatch of food supplies from Australia.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is rather lengthy I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the hon. Lady now, so as to relieve anxieties, indicate that really effective steps are taken so that people may make their gifts and be assured that they reach this country?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that we are in the closest touch with the Australian representatives in this country. I have given this long statement because he asked for a clear statement, and I thought he would like to have the details. I think he will be satisfied that we are in touch with Australia, and that Australia is satisfied with the contact.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Combined Food Board allocates all the food and that, therefore, no matter how generous the Australians are—and they are wonderfully generous—we get no additional food?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the Combined Food Board is not a supernational State. It can allocate food but it cannot direct food. It may allocate an amount of food, but if that food is not there to purchase, we cannot purchase it. If the Australians happened to have a surplus amount they would be in a position to give us the food to purchase which has been allocated.

Mr. De la Bère: May- we thank them for their wonderful generosity?

Following is the answer: From time to time announcements from the Ministry of Food have made it clear that the United Kingdom has undertaken to purchase and to ship the utmost supplies which the Australian Government can offer of butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, tallow, wheat, flour, rice, meat, eggs, sugar and dried fruits. The need for these foodstuffs is now greater than ever and we shall appreciate to the full any further help rendered from Australia. Most of the foodstuffs are needed to maintain the rations in the United Kingdom, but certain supplies, including particularly wheat, flour, rice and condensed milk must be used to relieve distress in those British Commonwealth territories such as India, Ceylon and

Malaya which are relatively near to Australia. Sugar is in a similar position. Additional supplies can make their greatest contribution to the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom responsibilities if they are used with greatest possible shipping economy. In this way food supplies from Canada, the United States and the West Indies which might otherwise have to be shipped great distances are released for the United Kingdom and Europe. The Commonwealth Government assesses the quantity of the foodstuffsmentioned above which are available for export from Australia and, in general, sells the produce direct to the Ministry of Food. The United Kingdom Government is responsible for shipping the supplies destined for the United Kingdom.

Oat Flakes

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food why he refused to allow the Northern Agricultural and Lime Company, "Limited, Aberdeen, to extend their manufacture of oat flakes, at present amounting weekly to 60 tons of human food, 30 tons of animal food and by- products, whereby the food supply of the country would be increased and additional employment would be given to from 15 to 20 people; and if he will re consider this matter and see that this project is encouraged.

Dr. Summerskill: The existing productive capacity is more than sufficient to meet the demand for oat flakes, and there is accordingly no occasion to increase manufacturing capacity at the expense of labour and building material required for more urgent purposes. Such additional employment as might be created, if permission were granted to this undertaking to extend its plant, would be counterbalanced by reduced employment elsewhere in the industry.

Milk (Priority Permits)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Food whether he has completed his inquiries into the system of priority permits for milk; and, in view of the possibility that these permits may be misused, what steps he proposes to take to obviate their misuse.

Dr. Summerskill: The statistical inquiry has now been completed. My right hon. Friend is seeking the advice of his


medical advisers on certain aspects, but there does not appear at first sight to be any serious or widespread abuse of the arrangements so far as the issue of permits is concerned.

Fish Shop Licence, Whitstable

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food on what grounds Mr. R. Foreman, of 79, Station Road, Whitstable, was refused a licence to open a shop for the sale of fresh fish, seeing that suitable premises were available and that Mr. Foreman's supply would be caught by his own vessel; and whether, with the cessation of fish zoning, he will, in the interests of greater food production, reconsider this application.

Dr. Summerskill: Mr. Foreman's application was refused on the grounds that there were already sufficient fish shops in Whitstable. As, however, the refusal was given in March, 1945, I am arranging for Mr. Foreman's application to be reconsidered by the Food Control Committee, and I will notify the hon. Member of the result.

Tomatoes (Allocation, Scotland)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Food whether there will be any allocations of imported Canary tomatoes to Scotland.

Dr. Summerskill: Canary tomatoes will be allocated to Scotland, provided their condition on arrival permits of their being carried by rail for long distances without excessive waste.

Imports from Eire

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Eireann producers are eager to export more foodstuffs to Britain, but that the prices offered are inconsistent with the costs of production; and if he will open negotiations with the Government of Eire for the purposes of settling price rates and relieving the food situation at home.

Dr. Summerskill: As my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the prices offered to Eire producers are sufficient to encourage exports to Britain, he sees no reason to open special negotiations.

Mr. Longden: Can the hon. Lady assure us that no political prejudice now stands in the way?

Dr. Summerskill: I can give the hon. Member that assurance

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the production of foodstuffs in Eire has been considerably reduced in the last three years as a result of the consistent policy of the Government in refusing—

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Eire is the second biggest exporter of foodstuffs to Britain; and if he will consider the mutual advantage that would come from the issuing of more licences to the exporters of British agricultural machinery, feeding stuffs and fertilisers to Eire.

Dr. Summerskill: Although Eire is not the second biggest exporter of foodstuffs to Britain, as my hon. Friend suggests, we are anxious to give every encouragement to her exports. So far as concerns agricultural machinery and fertilisers, all the supplies possible are being provided for her out of the limited quantities available, but regard must be paid to other needs, particularly those of United Kingdom agriculture, and to our obligations under Combined Food Board arrangements. As regards feeding stuffs, exports from the United Kingdom are not at present possible.

Service Rations

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Food what decision has now been reached by the Government in regard to reducing Service rations so that the rations of men engaged in the heavy industries may be increased.

Dr. Summerskill: The question of reductions in the home Service rations is still under consideration.

Sir T. Moore: During that consideration, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that the people of this country do not understand how it is that a young girl typing a few hours in the A.T.S. should have more food than a miner or a skilled worker?

Dr. Summerskill: I am fully sympathetic with the hon. and gallant Member's point of view.

Jam-Making Fruits

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he intends reverting to the prewar arrangements regarding the marketing of fruit for jam-making, or to renew pre-emptions for the coming year to selected merchants.

Dr. Summerskill: Arrangements are being made again this year for the pre-emption of soft fruits for jam-making, on similar lines to those of last year.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Lady say whether the merchants concerned are the same as last year?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, the same licensed merchants will handle the business.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATION

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many laundries are now refusing to take the work of their former customers; and if he will arrange for an extra soap ration to be granted to those people who have to do their own washing, owing to the inability to get it done by a laundry.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that, largely owing to shortage of labour, many laundries are unable to accept any more customers, but he regrets that he is not able to provide them with extra soap rations. The hon. Member will appreciate that many housewives have managed all along to do their own laundering without the provision of extra soap rations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Wine Import Licences (Service Personnel)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade, how many applications by officers and men of the Forces have been made for the importation of wine under duty purchased by or gifted to them; and how many such applications have been refused and for what quantities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I regret that records arc not kept in a form which would enable me to give the hon. and gallant Member the information for which he asks. In general, however, licences have not been issued in such cases.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the general satisfaction this would give to these men and their families, say what motive prompts the Government to refuse these licences?

Mr. Belcher: Licences are issued, or are not issued, according to the advice of the Ministry of Food, whose policy is based on a fair share for every one, and the feeling that it would be destructive to that principle if privileged people were allowed to import into this country quantities of wines and spirits greater than those which are normally available here.

Colonel Hutchison: When the Minister talks about privileged persons, does he not agree that it is a small recompense by way of privilege for what these men have done for the country?

Mr. Belcher: I cannot agree that the way to award people for their services to this country is to enable them to import wines and spirits.

Glove Industry

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many glove-cutter apprentices are employed in the factories on the Pontypridd estate;
(2) whether it is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government that glove factories on the Pontypridd estate are sending skins to other areas to be cut, to the detriment of the older-established centres of gloving.

Mr. Belcher: One glove manufacturer on the Treforest Estate, to whom the hon. and gallant Member presumably refers, has employed since his establishment shortly before the war a small amount of cutting labour in other areas. The firm is training a number of local apprentices to do this work, but it is a skilled operation requiring considerable experience, and, while local labour is being trained, it is necessary to have the assistance of a few skilled workers from other areas in order to provide full employment for the labour engaged on other operations.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Is the Minister aware that the old established glove firms are so short of skins that they are unable to start production, and does he not consider that there has been a misallocation of skins?

Mr. Belcher: No, Sir, the fact is that the allocation to this particular firm is on the same basis as for the rest of the industry, but, since their labour forces were better maintained during the war than in glove firms generally, they were able to do a fair amount of Government work. We


have maintained their allocation at the wartime levels to avoid unemployment. We have emphasised to this firm that we expect them only to employ Welsh labour, but there is always. a certain amount of out-work in the glove industry and we have no legal means to prevent them from doing so.

Furniture From Europe

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that, in connection with any arrangements made under the auspices of his Department for buying furniture from European countries, such furniture will not come from forced labour in concentration camps.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir.

German Timber

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of logs have been supplied to this country from the German State forests since the armistice; whether he is aware of the necessities of an adequate timber supply for our housing programme; and if he will take steps to expedite imports of timber through the Army authorities on the Rhine.

Mr. Belcher: One thousand, two hundred and ninety-three tons have so far arrived from Germany in addition to 6,300 tons of sawn timber, but I am unable to say whether they were derived originally from the State forests. In view c-f the need for timber in this country, a strong organisation for timber production has now been created as part of the Control Commission in the British zone and supplies will be developed as rapidly as production and transport conditions allow.

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Forestry Commission sent to Germany commenced operations; and if he will state the quantities of timber exported to this country since these operations commenced.

Mr. Belcher: Timber production was started in Germany in the early days of the Allied occupation mainly to provide for the needs of the forces of occupation and of the coal mines. The first part of the enlarged organisation left this country at the end of February. The answer to

the second part of the Question is 7,500 tons.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Can the Minister give an assurance that German forests will not be permanently destroyed by the present exploitation?

Mr. Belcher: There is certainly no desire on our part to exploit German forests to the point of annihilation, but we have to meet our essential requirements.

Business Premises Control

Mr. Maclay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that every order prohibiting the carrying on at any premises in the United Kingdom of any trade or business, made by him under the powers conferred on him by Defence Regulation 55A, as continued and amended by S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1618, by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Belcher: The laying of Orders under Defence Regulations is not a matter for Ministerial assurance, but of statutory requirement. Under Section 4 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, every Order made under a Defence Regulation which is of the nature of a Public Act is required to be laid before Parliament, and is subject to negative resolution. Defence Regulation 55A empowers Orders to be made prohibiting the carrying on at any premises in the United Kingdom, or in any area in the United Kingdom, of a trade or business of a class specified in the Order which was not being carried on during a specified period. It does not empower the Board of Trade to make an Order prohibiting a named firm from starting business. All Orders made under the regulation have been of the nature of Public Acts, and I cannot conceive of an Order being made which would not be of that nature.

Textile Materials, Italy

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a large surplus of textile manufacturing capacity available in Northern Italy; and whether he will consider making arrangements for the supply of raw materials on the basis that the major proportion of the manufactured


goods would then be available for disposal in this country or elsewhere in the sterling or dollar areas.

Mr. Marquand (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The existence of surplus capacity in the Italian textile industry has been known for some time and no effort is being spared to make the best use of it in order to relieve the world shortage of textiles. The Board of Trade have already assisted a number of British firms to make arrangements of the kind referred to in the second part of the Question, and we are willing to consider further schemes on similar lines.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the hon. Member aware that a considerable volume of textile machinery is standing idle in this country due to the great shortage of labour?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are 300,000 quintals of silk about 15,000 tons, surplus in Italy; and whether he will arrange for the supply of scrap iron or other raw material badly needed in Italy, so as to make this surplus available for domestic use in this country.

Mr. Belcher: The amount of silk in Italy at the end of 1945 for home use or export is thought more probably to have been about 4 million lbs. in all. The present total United Kingdom stock, which includes supplies from Italy, is ample for our present capacity to process with the limited labour available. There is, therefore, no occasion for special measures to secure further supplies of silk from Italy.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he has not answered my Question? I am suggesting that arrangements should be made to put into manufacture this surplus silk in Italy, and the figures I have quoted correspond to the supply of 500,00.0,000 pairs of silk stockings in this country.

Seamen's Woollen Comforts, Newlyn

Mr. Beechman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that mittens and other woollen goods now stored at the Seamen's Institute at Newlyn for distribution to fishermen can-not be so distributed owing to the fact that the fishermen are not entitled to

Mercantile Marine coupons; and whether he will have this matter put right as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Belcher: No, Sir. I understand that the goods to which the hon. Member refers were originally supplied by the headquarters of the mission to deep sea fishermen for distribution to crews of minesweepers. The Secretary of the local institute appears, therefore, to be following the wishes of the donors of the articles in declining to release them except against the surrender of Merchant Navy coupons or the "free comforts coupons" which deep sea, but not inshore, fishermen receive.

Mr. Beechman: Can the Minister arrange for inshore fishermen, who take out small boats many miles to sea in all sorts of weather, to receive these endowments as well as other fishermen?

Mr. Belcher: Inshore fishermen, in addition to the ordinary civilian ration, receive the industrial "ten" and they have special facilities for acquiring coupons for protective clothing.

Empire Cotton Crowing

Captain Crowder: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken, other than those by the Empire Cotton Growing Association, to encourage the production of U.S. type cotton in territories under the Crown.

Mr. Belcher: The Government of India are continuing to encourage the production of United States type cotton with considerable success, but it is used principally in India itself. In British East and West Africa, the United Kingdom Government since the beginning of 1943 has underwritten the cotton crops up to and including the first postwar crop. Substantial quantities of cotton have come to the United Kingdom under these arrangements.

Captain Crowder: Will the Minister do what he can to encourage production within the Empire so that dollars will not have to be found to purchase this commodity?

Mr. Belcher: We will certainly look into that.

Imported Furs

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many furs were imported into this country from


September to December, 1945; and whether any inquiry is made as to how these furs are obtained, to secure a minimum of cruelty to the animals concerned

Mr. Belcher: Imports of fur skins, other than rabbit skins, are not recorded by numbers of skins, and no such figures are available. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th March.

Fibre Board

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of fibre board for the manufacture of corrugated containers; and the bad effect which this is having upon manufacturers in many trades; and if he will take steps to have the output of this substance increased.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir. While almost as many fibre board containers are being produced as before the war, the demand has increased owing to the shortage of other packing material. Endeavours are being made somewhat to increase the supplies of fibre board, but it is important that old containers should continue to be re-used to the maximum extent possible.

Northern Ireland (New Industries)

Mr. John Beattie: asked the. President of the Board of Trade the number of new industries allocated to Northern Ireland in the 12 months ended February, 1946.

Mr. Belcher: Since January, 1945, 21 firms have decided to start new production in Northern Ireland. We have, of course, no power to allocate new industries to any particular area.

Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the major reason for this very considerable number of industries starting up in Northern Ireland is that they have confidence in the Government over there?

Mr. Beattie: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Northern Ireland we have a growing army of unemployed persons due to the failure of the Tory Government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Belcher: I suggest that perhaps the answer—

Mr. Speaker: One bad supplementary question leads to another bad one.

Women's Garments (Down pointing)

Miss Bacon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with respect to the reimbursement of traders for coupons lost by the de pointing of women's garments; and state the position of tailors and dressmakers who make garments to customers' requirements.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir. Garment manufacturers, including bespoke tailors, will, during the period of downpointing, continue to give the full number of coupons for the cloth which they purchase but will receive the reduced rate of coupons for garments of the downpointed types which they supply. They will, therefore, require reimbursement on the basis of the number of garments of the downpointed types of their own manufacture which they supply to others during the period of downpointing. Dressmakers who merely make up cloth which is their customers' own property will not lose any coupons and will, therefore, not have any claim. Dressmakers who themselves surrender coupons for the cloth required to make their customers' garments, and collect coupons from their customers at the appropriate rate for the finished garments will be in the same position as bespoke tailors, and will require reimbursement in the same way. We have secured the help of the trade associations in handling these applications. Claim forms for manufacturers and bespoke tailors will be available from the trade associations after 25th March, and should be returned to these associations after completion. Distributors will sell downpointed garments from their opening stocks for less coupons than they gave for them, but they will be able to replace them during the period of downpointing at the reduced coupon rate. They will, therefore, lose coupons only if their stocks of downpointed garments are lower at the end than they were at the beginning of the downpointing period and they will require reimbursement only in these circumstances and to this extent. All distributors who think that they may wish to make a claim should start keeping records at once to show separately for each type of downpointed garment (a) the number in stock at 13th March, (b) the number pur-


chased from 13th March to 7th June, (c) the number sold from 13th March to 7th June and (d) the number in stock at 7th June. Claim forms for distributors will be available from the distributors' Associations at the end of the period of downpointing. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the Trade Associations for their help.

Captain Crowder: Will the Minister explain what is the difference between depointing and downpointing, and what those terms mean?

Mr. Belcher: I am not aware that I used the word "depositing."

Hon. Members: It is in the Question.

Mr. Belcher: I cannot be responsible for words used by hon. Members in Questions. Obviously, the word should be "downpointing."

Oral Answers to Questions — FASCIST ACTIVITIES (ALBERT HALL MEETING)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Driberg:

137. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a public demonstration is to be held at the Albert Hall, on Wednesday, 13th March, by a body known as the Britons' Vigilantes Action League; and if, in view of the fact that much of the propaganda of this League is identical with that of our enemies in the late war and of the consequent likelihood that a breach of the peace will be provoked, he will prevent this demonstration from taking place.

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency and the possible far-reaching effect of any reply which may be given, can we have an oral answer to Question No. 137?

Mr. Speaker: No, I can see no need and this is not a matter for me to decide.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Should I be in Order in raising on the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill this afternoon the question of this Fascist demonstration?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Driberg: May I, in view of the urgency of this matter, ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—that is, the revival of Fascism in this country and the public demonstration by Fascists which is due to take place at the Albert Hall tonight?

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical, and I cannot accept it.

PERSIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have been asked to make a statement regarding Persia. The Soviet Government have not yet replied to the note addressed to them on 3rd March by His Majesty's Government on the subject of the non-withdrawal of Soviet troops from Northern Persia. I have instructed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow to ask M. Molotov for an early reply. I have not yet received it. I should still prefer not to make a statement at this stage.

LIBRARY (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Second Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix), brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mortlake Crematorium Board) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAM ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL,

>" to validate the election of Mrs. Freda KÜnzlen Corbet, Stanley Stephen Awbery, Esquire, and James Harrison, Esquire, to the House of Commons notwithstanding their holding certain offices, and to indemnify them from any penal consequences which they may have incurred by sitting and voting as Members of that House," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).''—[Mr. Whiteley]

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 131

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[3.20 p.m.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.


Austin, H. L.
Farthing, W. J.
McAllister, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La T. 


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. 
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McGovern, J.


Baird, Capt. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mack, J. D. 


Balfour, A.
Gallacher, W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Barstow, P. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McKinlay, A. S.


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacMillan, M. K.


Belcher, J. W.
Gooch, E. G.
McNeil, H.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Beswick, FIt.-Lieut. F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. 


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Grierson, E.
Marquand, H. A.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Binns, J.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Monslow, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Montague, F.



Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morley, R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardy, E. A
Moyle, A.


Burden, T. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nally, W.


Burke, W. A.
Haworth, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
House, G.
Oldfield, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hoy, J.
Oliver, G. H


Cobb, F. A.
Hubbard, T.
Orbach, M.


Cocks, F S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Coldrick, W
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Parker, J.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Abardeen, N.)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. 


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pearson, A.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Corvedale Viscount
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Perrins, W.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A
Janner, B.
Piratin, P.


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
John, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Price, M. P


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.


Deer, G.
King, E. M.
Rankin, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinghorn, Squ.-Ldr. E.
Ridealgh Mrs. M.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Dobbie, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Douglas, F. C. R.
Lang, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sargood, R.


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelliy)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A A.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Watson, W. M.


Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Westwood, Rt. Hon J


Skeffington. A. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Skeffington-Lodge, T C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Skinnard, F. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thorneycroft, H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Tiftary S.
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Titterington, M F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sparks, J. A.
Tolley, L.
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Stamford, W
Tomlinson Rt. Hon. G.
Willis, E.


Steele, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stephen, C.
Usborne, Henry
Wise, Major F. J.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Stokes, R. R
Wadsworth, G.
Yates, V. F.


Strachey, J.
Walkden, E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Strauss, G. R
Walker, G H.
Zilliacus, K.


Stross, Dr. B
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)



Stubbs, A E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Mathers and


Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Watkins, T. E.
Captain Blenkinsop




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L. 


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jennings, R.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Challen Fit.-Lieut. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M


Cooper-Key. E. M
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Crowder, Capt J. F. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cuthbert, W. N
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R (Lancaster)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Walker-Smith, D.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, Capt. L D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gates, Maj. E . E
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
York, C.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gridley, Sir A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Drewe and


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.
Commander Agnew.


Resolution agreed to

Orders of the Day — MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
 That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers of the Treasury to raise money under Section one of the National Loans Act, 1939, to make provision as to certain obligations arising out of or in connection with the war, to charge certain payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, on the Consolidated Fund, to provide for a temporary increase in the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund, to amend the Defence Loans Act, 1937, and to increase the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of—

(i) any money required for raising any supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds; and
(ii) any money required for the purpose of providing any sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (d) of this Resolution;
(b) the treating as a liability arising under a security issued under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any liability to make payments over a period of years which, under any agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and any other Government concerning obligations arising out of or in connection with the war, is accepted by His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom in respect of those obligations, or in respect of sums advanced by that other Government to enable those obligations to be discharged;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum advanced as aforesaid by the other Government, and the issue thereof out of the Consolidated Fund for the- purposes of discharging the said obligations;
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required—
(i) for payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, by the War Damage Commission in respect of war damage, or in respect of interest on value payments or on payments to be made under Section eighteen of that Act; or
(ii) for payments under the said Act by theBoard of Trade in respect of war damage to goods or in respect of interest on any such payments; or
(iii) for increasing the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund until the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty by not more than two hundred and fifty million pounds; or
(iv) by reason of the increase, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred

and forty-six, of the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to three thousand five hundred pounds per annum; and
(e) the payment into the Exchequer of all repayments of sums issued to the Civil Contingencies Fund under paragraph (d) of this Resolution, and the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums paid into the Exchequer under this paragraph and their application in redeeming or repaying debt."

Orders of the Day — MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Additional borrowing powers, etc.)

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out paragraph (a).
We had rather been hoping that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been here this afternoon to deal with this important matter, but I understand that at the present time he is meeting a, deputation with regard to the problem of Japanese bonds. Although we need his presence here this afternoon, I hope he will give serious attention to what the deputation has to say, and I trust he will give to them a much more responsible reply than any he has so far given to the House.
When the Financial Secretary was dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, he put the House in a rather grave difficulty. He explained that the Government were anxious to get the Bill before 31st March, and he went so far as to say that the difficulty for the House was unavoidable, since Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill must necessarily be passed before 31st March. We quite understood his anxiety to get those Clauses, but we did not see any reason why he should get Clause 1. That Clause, to which this Amendment is directed, gives the Treasury very extreme powers with regard to borrowing. Up to now, there has always been, in recent years, a National Loans Bill introduced into the House after the Budget. On this occasion, the Clause, which covers the same business as that with which the National Loans Bill dealt, is part of this Bill, which is innocently called the


Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill. One would not imagine from the Title, that this Bill was a very important one, but, in fact, it gives the Government powers to borrow the whole of next year's expenditure, and £250 million in addition. If the Amendment is not accepted, the Committee will have vested these enormous borrowing powers in the Chancellor.
I suggest to the Committee that it is not reasonable that the Government should ask for such extraordinarily wide powers until the Committee have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he feels he is likely to want to borrow. If the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary are not in a position now to give some indication of how much they will want to borrow, and how much of next year's national expenditure will be met from taxation, I suggest that the Committee ought to insist on this Amendment being carried, and a National Loans Bill being introduced after we have heard the Budget Statement. The Budget Statement is, of course, the most important financial statement of the year, but it is rather an extraordinary procedure that the Government should ask the Committee to authorize, in advance of any information with regard to the Budget, such an enormous sum of money.
Many people in this country are be coming seriously alarmed at the rate of expenditure, and the extravagance of the Government. I know very well that in wartime, extravagance is very difficult to avoid. In time of war, the Treasury are gravely handicapped in carrying out their normal functions as guardians of the public purse. There are so many sudden changes of policy, events move so swiftly, the skilled technical manpower available to the Treasury is so scarce, that extravagance is almost inevitable in time of war. But now, I suggest, we must seriously examine every detail of our expenditure. The sums of money which it is proposed to borrow under this Bill may amount to £4,000 million or £5,000 million. In the years of highest war expenditure, there was no occasion when more than about half of our expenditure had to be met by borrowing, and, therefore, it seems a very odd proposal that we should be asked, in advance of the Budget and the Budget Statement, to give authority for such large borrowings as this.
For what are these very large sums of money wanted? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us something about that. It is easy to see in what direction money is being spent. There is a vast continuing expenditure at the present time on warlike stores and equipment. ' We learned from Debates in the House only a week or so ago that more than 1,700,000 men and women are still employed in producing warlike stores and equipment. I do not know what the wages bill for such a vast number of people would be, but I cannot imagine that it would be less than £400 million or £500 million a year, if one calculates wages on the sort of levels at which they have recently been running. In addition, there is the vast cost of material, which also adds considerably to the bill. Again, there are large numbers of civil servants being employed. The latest figures in the statistical tables show that there are now 821,000 civil servants employed by the Government. That figure, of course, does not include industrial workers, but it takes into account a certain number of part-time workers. Comparing it with equivalent figures before the war, I calculate that, whereas there are now 821,000 employed, there were, before the war, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000, an enormous increase. Many of the Estimates which we shall be examining later on will also, no doubt, be making great demands upon the Exchequer. I should very much like to examine closely the estimates of the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Supply, and the War Office. We might then see where these vast sums of money are being poured out.
There is one aspect of the matter to which I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman. He has been engaged, as all his predecessors have been, in encouraging the National Savings Campaign. I ask him very seriously to consider the ill-effects upon that campaign of continued Government extravagance. It is a serious difficulty in the way of those who are supporting the National Savings Campaign to find that Government extravagance is not being curbed. It is not going to be easy to keep up the savings effort, and the Chancellor may not find it nearly as easy as in past years to borrow money. There are, of course, very great advantages to the borrower in obtaining cheap money; but of course cheap money is less agreeable to


the lender than to the borrower, and it may be that, if money is very cheap, those who have some to spend or invest may be tempted to spend it as soon as goods become available, and some even may possibly encash some of their wartime savings.
The inflationary consequences of all these things will be very apparent. Up to now the true inflationary position in this country has not thoroughly revealed itself. At present, there is a concealed inflation, but I suggest that the true position is bound to disclose itself in due course. I have always thought that the estimate of 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. above prewar levels, which Sir William Beveridge and others have suggested as being the sort of level at which prices may settle down, is a very optimistic one indeed. I hope that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will keep a very close eye on the need for funding, which does not become any easier if the expenditure is still kept on a high level. I suggest to the Chancellor that he must remember that once the Bretton Woods Agreement is through, if it does come through —

Mr. Boothby: It will now.

Mr. Assheton: It looks as if it will—he will not be able to continue the depreciation of the currency in the same way as in the past. I hope the Committee will realise the extraordinary dilemma in which they are being placed by the Government this afternoon. This Committee is being asked to pass a Bill which contains a Clause giving power to the Government to borrow money, and the Government have so far not been in a position to tell us what this money is to be used for, or how much of next year's expenditure has to be covered by borrowing. The Financial Secretary himself, in the Second Reading Debate, said:
 We are today asking the House to give us the authorities set forth in this Bill, before the House knows what the Budget may contain. That is a difficulty, but it is an unavoidable difficulty since this time in Clauses 2 and 3 we are asking for additional powers and provisions which it is essential this House should pass before 31st March."—[Official Report, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2297.]
We recognise the need to borrow under Clauses 2 and 3 and also that it will be necessary to have

a National Loans Bill at some time, during the next month or two, but we do not think it is an unavoidable difficulty. We say that the way to avoid it is to accept the Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 1. If that is done, the Government will get all they heed for the present time, and they will then have to introduce the National Loans Bill after the Budget in exactly the same way as they have done annually in recent years. I see no reason why, in time of peace, we should adopt a procedure which this Committee was not called upon to adopt even in time of war.

3.45 P.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I have not been very deeply impressed, nor, I think have the Committee, by the somewhat self-contradictory remarks of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). What, after all, is he afraid of? He has spoken to us about the possibility of extravagance, but we have heard a great deal in the last few days about terminal charges and all the inevitable expenditure that must necessarily come at the end of a war. We have had it made clear to us that while there cannot be a substantial saving in 1946 there is every certainty of such saving in 1947 and thereafter. I happen to have a very long memory, and I well recall what happened at the end of the last war, when the National Debt went on increasing in 1919, 1920 and 1921. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of an increase in national debt? Is that what is troubling him? I can hardly think so because in his speech he expressed a very grave concern for the savings campaign. The savings campaign, whether right or wrong, has the effect of increasing national debt, piling up that heavy burden for posterity to carry.
I cannot, as I say, think what the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of. He used a very grim and ominous word which I do not like, which the taxpayers of this country will not like, and which, I think, this Committee will not like. It is a thing for which we have to keep our eyes skinned. He used the word ''funding." Is that what he is concerned about? Does he want the Government to exchange a low interest debt for a high interest one, to pay out 2½ per cent, or 3 per cent. instead of one-half or five-eighths of 1 per cent.?
I never heard such a hotch-potch of conflicting arguments as those used by the right hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that, in this Committee, one either understands finance or one does not. If one does not understand finance, one is in the happy position of seeing the whole thing very clearly. If one does understand finance, one is in the unhappy position of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Before I sit down I should like to refer to the threat—I love to hear that threat—to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was to the effect that if the loan went through and we were tied to Bretton Woods my hon. Friend would not be able to allow the currency to go on depreciating as the right hon. Gentleman suggests it has been doing. I put it to the Committee that the powers for which the Government ask are perfectly reasonable, and that, even if they were not, nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said has given any cause either for hon. Members on this side to give way to them on their Amendment, or for any unfortunate taxpayer like myself to believe that things would be any better in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have never been able to understand whether the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) is one of those people who understands finance or not. At times, it appears to me that he both does and does not. I wish he had been able to address himself to this Bill, because I assure him it gives ample scope for his intellectual powers and for his knowledge of the subject. In the remarks I wish to make to the Committee this afternoon— and which I hope will not be unduly protracted—I would emphasise that this is an important Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said, and that we must investigate it from many angles. I want to concentrate on five main considerations connected with Government borrowing policy. First, the unlimited sums which are asked for in this Bill; secondly, the system of Government accounting; thirdly, the increasing risk of inflation; fourthly, the future activities of the national savings campaign; and, fifthly, the Government policy of cheap money.
The Press, on the Second Reading of this Bill, entirely misapprehended it. They seized on the figure of £250,000,000, which is associated with

the Civil Contingencies Fund, and ignored altogether the £2,700,000,000 odd which is now being obtained from various sources by the issue of Government stock. They called it an adjusting Bill. They quoted a few words of the Financial Secretary and left the public with the impression that only £250,000,000 was to be borrowed before the Chancellor was able to balance his Budget. That is entirely misleading. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. O. Stanley) said on the Second Reading, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said just now, this Clause gives the Chancellor power to finance the whole of the central Government expenditure by loan. It is, in fact, a Clause with the widest possible implications. At present, taxation provides about half the central Government expenditure, and therefore half the cover provided by this Bill is redundant and supererogatory. I am astonished that no limit, even one as high as £3,000,000,000), has been put into this Clause.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord, but he is referring sometimes to the whole Bill, sometimes to this Clause. We are dealing with an Amendment to the Clause.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I apologise, Major Milner. I am speaking about the Clause. and about this Amendment which the Committee are considering. Clearly it is no use asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put any limit into this Clause. To him, no doubt, as to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) pounds, shillings and pence are meaningless symbols. Nevertheless, I think it very surprising that the Treasury, with its reputation for financial propriety, and exactitude in financial matters, should be guilty of taking a cavalier attitude, in framing a finance Bill. This Clause is sloppy in style and phraseology. It is also dangerous in intent, and I would like to examine with the Committee what are some of the dangers
The 1945 White Paper on the sources of war finance and the composition of the national income shows that out of a total Government expenditure of £5,900 million—I am dealing now in


figures to the nearest £100 million— approximately half, or £3,100 million is provided by taxation; £1,000 million from miscellaneous sources, including depreciation in internal assets and increase of overseas indebtedness; and £1,700 million, nearly one-third of the total, by private savings. That £1,700 million is made up as to £800 million in small savings, including an increase in deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank, and as to £900 million by an increase in corporation reserves and the reserves of public departments and local authorities. It is with sums of that order that we are dealing in this Clause.
During the war very few issues of industrial capital have been allowed, and consequently the outlet for savings has found almost total expression in the issues of Government stock. I would like to pause here to remark how unsatisfactory and inadequate to the needs of the times, is the present Government system of accounting. Successive Chancellors have sedulously refused to produce anything in the nature of a capital account or Ex chequer balance sheet. No one knows what are the assets of the Government on capital account. The Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure says that the Government's accounts are kept upon what they call "a penny notebook system." We know what are the outgoings of the spending Departments; we know what is the Ex chequer income from taxation and from increases in the National Debt. We know nothing about the composition of Ex chequer assets, and this at a time when nationalisation and State trading are turning—

The Chairman: Now the Noble Lord is out of Order. The sole question is whether these borrowing powers should be given to the Government or not. A review of the whole governmental policy is not permissible.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it permissible to argue that the Committee should refuse to give the Government such powers because they have a wrong accounting system?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am just about to pass from the point of the accounting system on to other matters.

The Chairman: There may be something in the hon. Member's point, but I do not think hon. Members are entitled to go into detail on that matter. They may mention it in general terms, but not in detail.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I pass from that point and ask the plain question: Does the annual income derived from taxation go to construct permanent Government establishments? We suppose so, but no one knows how many factories are built by the Government out of taxation, or what is their value. Much more important than that—and it applies particularly to this Clause of the Bill— is whether the people's investments in the Funds go to provide old age pensions and other annual outgoings. It may well be the case. No one has the slightest idea, and I suggest to the Committee that that is an extraordinary position, and calls for some drastic revision of the system of Government accounting.
It is easy to say that the Government have not embarked on the course of devoting a large part of the revenue to the creation of profitable, permanent assets. Much more likely altogether the reverse of that is true, and the Government are devoting the proceeds of capital savings and investment to annual expenditure without any tangible return. That is exactly what the Government did in 1930 and 1931. I suggest to the Committee that that is a vicious financial practice, which brings private firms into bankruptcy, and great States into ruinous inflation. Are the Government sliding easily down that slope? I think they are, and fatuously, too. The saying of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield about pounds, shillings and pence being meaningless symbols, is well known already to the Committee, but there are other examples as well. There is the Minister of Works, who, during the Committee stage of the Building Materials and Housing Bill, said he had no knowledge of the financial matters of his Department. Several times the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have come here and said that they do not know what our commitments are, and in Bill after Bill which the Government introduce are the sinister words, "No estimate of the charge to public funds can be given."
4.0 p.m
But much more serious than attitudes and words, are the facts and figures of the present situation. The National Debt has risen over the last six years, by an average of over £2,500 million per annum, and the fiduciary issue has also increased by £150 million per annum. The note issue has gone up from £660 million in 1939 to £1.615 million today. Average weekly industrial earnings in industry have risen from 53s. 3d. in 1938, to 96s. Id. in July last year, an increase of 80 per cent. The index of wholesale prices stands at 175 today against 100 in 1939, industrial raw materials at 200 and building materials at 158. The cost of building labour has risen 70 per cent. on 1938 prices. It is true that the working class cost-of-living index stands at 131, but that scarcely represents reality, because subsidies to the extent of £300 millions are included in it. Those subsidies themselves operate in an inflationary sense. Do not these figures point to a developing inflationary situation? Manifestly a man who invested £100 in war loan in 1939, finds that it is only worth £50 or £60 today in terms of current prices of goods and services. It is abundantly clear that the pressure of Government money today is, bit by bit, destroying the value of small savings.
It is a completely false economic doc trine that high taxation and a high rate of savings prevent inflation. That is the stock argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it simply will not wash. Look at the result of both today, after six years of war. The burden of the propaganda of the National Savings Committee is that self-interest and patriotism are served by investing in Government stock. But where is the self-interest, if at the end of six years the money is reduced by half, and where is the patriotism if at the end the nation finds itself landed in a financial crisis? When do we begin to introduce legitimacy into the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his collaborators in the national savings movement? I believe that the boundary line of propriety is what I said earlier— taxation for current expenditure, savings for capital investments. There must be some mean between the extreme view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) who regards all savings campaigns as a racket, and the more general view that such campaigns are the very essence of

virtue and wisdom. To refuse the Government any borrowing powers at all would obviously be to wreck the reconstruction programme, to reduce the strength of our Armed Forces, to destroy our overseas commercial connections, our propaganda services and to impair our prestige. On the other hand, to allow the Government to pursue their present course unchecked would inevitably impoverish the pensioner, and betray the trust which millions of small savers have reposed in successive Governments.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London said just now the Chancellor and the National Savings Committee must really think out afresh what their policy is going to be over the next few months. Let their appeal to the public be selective. Let it be calculated to promote investment in permanent assets. Do not let us have any more of these vague national savings campaigns which only find expression in higher annual outgoings. I shall certainly continue to attack such campaigns as the raw material for totalitarian equalitarianism at home. Hon. Members opposite might equally well attack them as the raw materials for imperialism over seas. Let us put this so-called mandate of hon. Members opposite to a practical test. Let the Minister of Fuel and Power, in conjunction with the Chancellor and the National Savings Committee, issue a prospectus for the re-equipment of the coal mines

The Chairman: The noble Lord is going too far. I did not follow his argument on the question of the national savings movement at all. Do I understand him to say that he is not agreeable to the paragraph appearing in the Bill on the grounds that the national savings movement is not desirable? If that is his argument, he has not made it clear. All the Noble Lord seems to be doing is to make a speech on the national savings movement, and he is not relating that to the question before the Committee

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was trying to make concrete suggestions for the future of the national savings movement, which would produce money directly related to investment and the production of goods, and not given to the Treasury to


be spent on current expenditure, thus promoting inflation. I submit that that subject is strictly relevant.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member can relate his argument to the Amendment to omit paragraph (a) from the Clause, I will agree with him. But he is merely indulging in a general discussion of financial questions sometimes far removed from the Amendment. He must relate it to the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I shall endeavour to follow your Ruling, Major Milner.
I make one more suggestion, and I assure the Committee that it is strictly relevant to the paragraph which we are proposing to leave out of the Bill. I have made a suggestion about the coal mines. I have another suggestion in regard to the Minister of Health, who wants local authorities to build houses. Why should that Minister take money in a round-about way? Why should people who object to his schemes be forced to pay for them? Let us have a housing loan accompanied by the fullest facts and details. It is sometimes said that we cannot identify a particular issue of Government stock, or a particular savings appeal, with the appropriate Department responsible for the expenditure. It is said that all the funds are gathered in by the Treasury and must be brought into the "kitty" and redistributed among the Government Departments. I do not see why that should be so. No private firm of which I know would operate in that way. Apart from the Services, I do not see why the Treasury should not emulate the best commercial practice. The fact remains that if the loan policy of the Government is not to be subject to continuous attacks from this side of the Committee, two things must happen. Inflation must be arrested by a, reduction in loan expenditure and a reduction in the note issue and in the fiduciary issue. Secondly, the impression must be removed that the Government are borrowing very largely for the purpose, not of capital investment, but of current expenditure. More than that, very much fuller information must be given of the character and objects of future loans.
May I say a word on the subject of cheap money? The irony of the present situation is that cheap money, or, to give

it another name, an expansionist financial policy, was devised by the economists as a remedy for slumps and unemployment, whereas today we have over-employment and a boom in finance, if not in trade. In those days Lord Keynes was the fair weather bird, soaring aloft in an economic blizzard. Now he hovers there in the light of the sun of his own creation, while my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) looks on him with adoring eyes. After years of education all political parties have come to adopt an expansionist financial policy as a fundamental part of their doctrine, but now what has happened? In response to the drive for cheap money our economy has switched, violently, from the trough to the crest, from the nadir to the zenith. Cheap money cured the patient of low blood pressure about 1940 or 1941, when the unemployment figures fell to negligible proportions. Now we are suffering from high blood pressure, and are still applying the same remedy—a sad commentary on the inertia of party policies. Cheap money is not a panacea for all economic evils. In a situation of over-employment and developing inflation no Government ought to be on a 2½ per cent, basis, least of all, in my opinion, a Socialist Government. I should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer get on to a 3½per cent., or 4 per cent, basis with the utmost celerity. The difference in money cost, for example, in a housing programme, is trifling, beside the rising cost of labour and materials which inflation is promoting from week to week. I doubt very much whether we have the right economic medicine at our bedside. It is incumbent on the Government to put up a much more elaborate defence of their policy on borrowing than they have hitherto seen fit to-do, and to be much more explicit on the terms of any future loans, and also on the character of future national savings campaigns.
I close with some words which were used by the present Chancellor of the. Exchequer in 1939 in the Second Reading Debate on the National Loans Bill, which is repealed, by implication, in this Clause. They are my sanction for having addressed the Committee at such length this afternoon. They are:
 In the Debate on the Financial Resolution on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:


'' It is obviously not in the public interest that the terms of a future loan should be the subject of debate and discussion before the issue is made.'
In a certain sense that may be true, but in another sense I think it is profoundly untrue. It is of very great importance that Members in all parts of the House should express their view before the form of the issue is determined upon, in the hope of influencing the decision of the Government regarding the terms of the issue to be made. This is a moment when debate can do no harm and may do much good."—[Official Report, 9th November, 1939; Vol. 353, c. 459-60.]
The speaker was the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), and I invite him now that he is Chancellor of the Exchequer to practise what he then preached.

4.15 p.m

Mr. Driberg: I shall be very brief in expressing the hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment, be cause I feel it may well be that, if certain tendencies which have not yet been checked are allowed to continue un checked, there will be need, in the financial year which we are considering, of unforeseeably large expenditure on certain services. I will give one example of that. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will find it necessary to take extra powers, and, therefore, to engage extra staff, in order to combat the revived and still insignificant, but growing, menace of Fascism in this country. I believe that, during the financial year referred to in the paragraph which it is sought to delete, we shall be feeling the full ill-effects of the meeting which is to take place tonight in the Albert Hall. I am referring strictly to the financial year referred to in the paragraph. Hon. Members may have seen a leaflet which has been distributed by the thousand throughout London to day, adorned with a swastika, advertising 2,000 free seats at that meeting —

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite out of Order. I cannot see that the question which he is now raising has any relevance whatever to the Amendment.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Major Milner, I am not sure whether you heard the opening of my sentence, in which I said that, in the financial year referred to in the paragraph which it is sought to delete, we shall be feeling the full ill-effects of the meeting which is to take

place tonight in the Albert Hall, because there is a growing, although still small, menace, to check which, I believe, the Home Secretary may have to incur extra expenditure during the coming financial year. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to delete this paragraph, it seems to me that they are seeking to defeat the prime object of the Bill, which is to make provision for
 certain obligations arising out of or in connection with the war.
To my mind, one of our prime obligations arising out of the war is our obligation to those who died to resist this foul heresy of Fascism, which is flaunting itself openly at the Albert Hall in three hours' time.

Mr. David Eccles: After the arguments of my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) there does not remain much for me to say as a reason why this paragraph should not remain in the Bill. It raises the whole question of the Government's borrowing policy, and if we are not satisfied that that policy is being properly carried on, I do not think we should give the enormous powers contained in this paragraph. I am not satisfied, for a particular reason. It seems to me that lately the Government's borrowing policy has become too much a Treasury game, in which cheap money is being pursued for its own sake. We all want cheap money, we all think it is a desirable thing, but low interest rates are useless, unless trade and industry can borrow the money at those rates. If one of the methods which is used to push, and cajole, and wheedle the price of 2½ per cent. Consoles to 100, is to prevent industrial borrowers from competing with the Government, we are not getting anywhere useful. If I might give a close parallel, it would be from the costs of house building. If we want to reduce the costs of house building, one of the easiest ways is to prevent any houses from being built; then, assuredly, costs will fall.
That object will be attained, but no one will get a home. We can do just the same thing with the price of money. If one has the power, as the Treasury has, to limit the number of borrowers, well, it is quite easy to firing down the price of money. I am very much afraid that has happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now by far the largest speculator on the London Stock Ex-


change. I know from my own experience it is a most intoxicating thing to see one's own stock creeping up and up and up. It is really most exciting in the morning to look first at the financial paper— demoralising but exciting. One can pursue a bull market for its own sake. It does nobody any good if the result of doing this with Government stock is to prevent really good borrowers from getting their money.
It cannot be in the national interest that we should borrow money at these artificially cheap rates to keep at work munition workers who are producing obsolete weapons, when sound borrowers who want to extend their production facilities for, say, civilian goods are kept out on the side line. If we look at this from the point of view of labour and materials, it is exactly the same. If we take up the labour and materials on un-creative work on the account of the Government, we prevent the labour and materials from being available for creative work in some other part of our economy.
I, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary to give us an assurance that this cheap money policy is not being pursued for its own sake by cutting down the number of borrowers so that, inevitably, the price of money falls. I have just one example which I wish to bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention. One of the results of this borrowing policy of the Government always making money cheaper is that capital values go up. Capital values of land and buildings have gone up a very great deal. That is directly the result of these enormous borrowings. Now a landowner or a farmer, if he desires to put up new buildings and to borrow money to carry on his business, finds when he goes to Agricultural Mortgage Corporation that he is allowed to borrow only two thirds of the prewar value of his land, on the basis that it is going to return to that value. That is what they tell him. The right hon. Gentleman's policy is making it certain that land and buildings will not return to that value. Therefore, we find men anxious to get on with productive work in the country who are prevented from borrowing the stun of money which they need to do that work, because of this Treasury manipulated cheap money policy. The Treasury has got its eye on the wrong thing. It has got its eye on

figures of two and a half per cent. at 100 instead of having its eye on creating new productive capacity. No doubt, we shall not be able to delete this Clause, but will the Financial Secretary please give some assurance that the Treasury's policy is one that aims at production and not just at low interest rates.

Mr. Stokes: May I go back for a few moments to the remarks addressed to this Committee by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)? He presented a most astonishing argument. He complained of the cheap money policy of the Government. He likened it in his own mind to some process of blood pressure, and explained how in 1940–41 it was necessary to reduce the Bank rate to get cheap money in order to provide full employment. Has the Noble Lord forgotten that the war had just started —

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That was not my argument at all. I said that, by 1940–41, when unemployment had been reduced to negligible proportions, we had been cured of the disease of low blood pressure.

Mr. Stokes: The point I wish to make is, had there not been pretty strong representations made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, money rates would not have been lowered. It had nothing whatever to do with the situation prevailing, but was merely the result of the increasing consciousness of the public that they were not going to put up with the racket of dear money in time of war. Be that as it may, there was one point in his speech with which I did agree. He complained that Chancellors of the Exchequer were disinclined to differentiate between capital and expenditure when presenting their Budgets. I agree with that remark; but how long were the Tory Party in power? How many opportunities have they had of presenting a different kind of Budget? Have they ever taken the advantage, which has so constantly been offered to them, to give the country a true picture on what is spent on capital account and what is spent on revenue? I am quite sure that the next Budget introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be much mere informative than anything of the kind introduced by any of his Tory predecessors.
The Noble Lord went on to say that the Government were sliding down the slippery slope of inflation. He complained that the Government were spending capital on account of revenue items. Here again may I ask has he forgotten that the war has only just ended, and that a war consists in spending capital on revenue items? That is what war is about, really. I think my Noble Friend has not a real conception of what constitutes wealth or capital. Capital is wealth used in the production of more wealth. When we get into a war we take our so-called surplus wealth and blow it to smithereens. Of course, we spend our capital on revenue items. We cannot get out of it on short term afterwards. If the time were appropriate, I should give the Committee a dissertation on the history of the last war and what happened in this connection. I do not know whether I should be in Order, except as a guide to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There was talk about the effects, or likely effects, of inflation. Surely, that is the history of war again. Does the Noble Lord remember what happened last time? We started the 1914-18 war with a National Debt of £700 million. Then we had four years of nice war, and at the end of that time there was a National Debt of £7,000 million. He and his Party then started to reduce the National Debt. It was done so effectively that after 20 years, had it gone down? No—it had risen by another £1,000 million, to £8,000 million. Now we have a National Debt which is of the order, I suppose, of £22,000 million to £24,000 million. It is a mess that, somehow or other, has to be cleared up. Prices have to be adjusted in order to meet the new situation. It was in a state of war that that process took place. Perhaps it may be a salutary lesson to the peoples of the world not to engage in such a futile occupation.
Complaint was also made by the Noble Lord of the increase in the note issue. For myself, I cannot see that an increase in the note issue is, in itself, a bad thing. It seems to me that it must inevitably follow in times of full employment, as in wars when there are more jobs than people to fill them. Again, my noble Friend has a wrong conception of money. Before, in this House, I have likened money to a bus ticket. That is all that money really is. The fact that one has a

bus ticket does not take one to the end of the route. One could put it on the pavement and sit on it, and one would still be on the pavement in the evening. So it-is with money. Money is merely a means of exchange. If we are to produce more goods, if we are to employ people fully, then it follows, as the night the day, that the note issue must increase in order to keep pace with the increased productivity.
Depreciation of war savings was another subject referred to by the Noble Lord. He said that everything the Government were doing was likely to lead Lo depreciation of the genuine savings of the people. I wonder whether he is right. I confine myself to this one point. Had he and his party got into power, and taken the advice, which he is now recommending, and put up the rates of interest, what would have happened to the genuine savings of the people in war loans? Down would go their value at once, without any hesitation. He knows that to be perfectly true.
4.30 p.m.
The Noble Lord got on one of his own hobby horses and said that I am always describing war savings weeks as '' rackets.'' That is a mild term compared with what I do call them. I have always described them as deceiving the people. I have always recognised that, if we are to have savings weeks, which must go on, in the conduct of our affairs in present circumstances, it is essential that the people should understand what they are doing. But to get people to believe that by lending their money to the Government it produces more tanks or aeroplanes, is just rank deception. That is what I have said. I certainly never followed the Noble Lord in his wickedness when he stood up in Dorset, and urged people not to indulge in war savings for a purely political issue —merely because he disagreed with the character of this Government and the aim they had in view. I never did anything of the sort. I encouraged them to put money away, but I told them not to be humbugged by the City financiers, who had only one end in view, and that was to raid their savings as soon as they could. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, I never have any money. I know hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side always know much more about other people's private affairs, so I shall leave it at that.
Icome to my last point on this question of a policy of cheap money. I hope the Government will continue with their policy of cheap money. When the noble lord talks about the slippery slope in the policy of this Government and of the implication in this Bill that the Government are going to be spendthrifts—which I do not accept for a moment—may I remind him that, despite all the pressure and the representations made again and again to this House and to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging that he should borrow money more cheaply than was done during the war, the Treasury discount rate went up from about one-half per cent. before the war, to over one per cent. since the war started. That was for no reason whatever except that the City told the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do it. What does this Chancellor do? The right hon. Gentleman has said "No more of this; we will put the bill rate down again," and the effect of reducing the bill rate week by week is, I think I am right in saying, an annual saving of £12 million sterling, and I call that a very satisfactory step and one which, had it been taken when we urged it five or six years ago, would have saved this country something of the order of £70 million. Looking at the facts of the case, if the country were asked to judge which Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the group of Chancellors whom we have had in the last seven years, was likely to bring the country through to a satisfactory solution—satisfactory in the true sense, not the City sense, of the word—of the financial problems facing us, I say, without doubt, that the verdict would be in favour of the present Chancellor.

Mr. Boothby: If the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) again does me the honour of asking me to dinner at his house, I warn him that the first thing I shall do will be to make a bee-line for his bedroom, in an effort to find the stocking wherein he keeps all his savings. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) that this Bill ought to have been introduced after the Budget; and that we should then have had some idea of its effect, and also more facts to guide us. At the present moment, we are completely in the dark as to the intentions of the Government, and also on the facts.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London when he says that current expenditure is excessive. It always is. I have never known any Government in the history of the country whose current expenditure was not excessive. It is, at the present moment; but more so than it has ever been before. But I part company with the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that he sees a great danger of inflation, arising out of this Clause. I do not think that this Clause is an inflationary Clause at all; and, personally, I want to see money kept cheap. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he spoke about funding operations; but, if he meant that we want to fund on more expensive terms, I do not think that is going to do any good. Alternatively, I do not see how we can make money much cheaper than it is.

Mr. Assheton: There is some advantage in using a time of cheap money in order to fund it.'

Mr. Boothby: Yes, of course. I am entirely on the side of the right hon. Gentleman there; but I should have thought that the current interest rate was so low, that it is difficult to see how we can get it much lower. I do not believe that inflation is caused by borrowing, as such. I believe that inflation is caused by the fact that the amount of money in circulation exceeds the amount of goods produced; and I believe that there is only one real answer to the problem. I think we have got to increase productivity. I do not think that the answer is to cut down the money in circulation at the present moment, but rather, at all costs, to increase the productivity of this country. I think that is what we should concentrate upon, to the exclusion of everything else, for almost nothing else matters today in our economic life.
Now I come to my main point. I believe we shall not get a quick increase of productivity in this country unless we lower taxation now, and, particularly, taxation on earned incomes; unless we put more goods into the shops, so as to give people some incentive to work; and unless we remove petty and vexatious controls at the lower levels. In order to carry out this policy, I think that, for the next two years, at any rate, a substantial borrowing policy is essential. I


do not want to see loan expenditure reduced at the present critical moment in our national affairs; and taxation, in consequence, either increased, or maintained at its present exorbitant, and, as I think, quite unjustifiable, level. We are still convalescent. That is why, other things being equal—and I regret that we have not had more information—I would be glad to see the Government use the powers which this Clause gives it to borrow pretty extensively until we can get a healthier economic position; and I cannot go into the Lobby against them, should there be a Division.
Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Beaumont, Bretton Woods was mentioned; and it was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that, if we continued to borrow on this scale, we might not be able to maintain the exchange value of sterling at the present rate. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the less the attention the Government pays to this unpleasing forest, the better it will be. The Bretton Woods Agreement has already been shown up as a monstrous piece of —

The Deputy - Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member's remarks are rather wide of the Amendment. Perhaps he will get back to it.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. May I point out that the Noble Lord deliberately saddled the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) with worshipping at the shrine of Lord Keynes over Bretton Woods?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Although the hon. Gentleman no doubt knew why you had risen, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I confess that I did not know. Could you state what was the point of Order on which you gave a Ruling?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's remarks seemed to me to be going away from the Amendment and tending to widen the Debate, which is not desirable. It might be perfectly true that the Noble Lord did introduce the subject of Bretton Woods, but, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) refrained from referring to it, I hope the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will also refrain.

Mr. Mitchison: Did not the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) introduce the matter?

Mr. Norman Smith: Was it not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who introduced it?

Mr. Boothby: On that point of Order, I would submit to you, Mr. Beaumont, that, anxious as I always am to be as good as possible, it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London who first raised the issue of Bret-ton Woods, on the specific point that if we gave to the Government the powers they ask for in this Clause we may not be able to hold sterling against the dollar. He was fully and ably answered by my hon. Friend opposite, in a speech with which I am in complete agreement. I merely wish to say that I think that it is strictly relevant to the argument that these borrowing powers, if granted to the Government, may prevent them holding the exchange value of the £ at this fantastic rate; and I submit that I am entitled to address myself to that argument. However, in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, I will not do it at any length. I will content myself by saying that I hope the delegates to the Bretton Woods Conference at Savannah are now enjoying themselves at the taxpayers' expense. They will achieve nothing more than that. We shall not be able to hold the £ at 4.2 to the dollar any more than the French will be able to hold the franc at 480 to the £. To attempt to stabilise exchanges in the world's present condition is something which can never be achieved, and borders on insanity.
I will now leave this topic, and deal in conclusion with a question which has been raised in almost every speech— the question of increasing the National Debt— because that, in effect, is what this Clause is bound to do. The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset raised the matter specifically; and, as he was speaking, a chord was struck in my memory which carried me back mentally to Lord Macaulay's "History of England," and carried me physically into the Library of this House, where I dug out the volume. I will quote one or two of the observations Lord Macaulay made upon the subject of the National Debt, as I think it is a good thing for this House sometimes


to revert to the wisdom of the past. Our own is not always so very profound. Discussing the National Debt, Lord Macaulay wrote, in volume IV:
 Such was the origin of that debt which has since become the greatest prodigy that ever perplexed the sagacity, and confounded the pride of statesmen and philosophers. At every stage in the growth of that debt, the nation has set up the same cry of anguish and despair. At every stage in the growth of that debt, it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt went on growing; and still bankruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever. When the great contest with Lewis the Fourteenth was finally terminated by the Peace of Utrecht, the nation owed about fifty millions; and that debt was considered, not merely by the rude multitude, not merely by foxhunting squires and coffee house orators, but by acute and profound thinkers, as an incumbrance which would permanently cripple the body politic. Nevertheless trade flourished; wealth increased; the nation became richer and richer. Then came the war of the Austrian Succession; and the debt rose to eighty millions. Pamphleteers, historians and orators pronounced that now, at all events, our case was desperate. Yet the signs of increasing prosperity, signs which could neither be counterfeited nor concealed, ought to have satisfied observant and reflecting men that a debt of eighty millions was less to the England which was governed by Pelham than a debt of fifty millions had been to the England which was governed by Oxford. Soon war again broke forth; and, under the energetic and prodigal administration of the first William Pitt, the debt rapidly swelled to a hundred and forty millions. As soon as the first intoxication of victory was over, men of theory and men of business almost unanimously pronounced that the fatal day had now really arrived.
So we go on, through war after war, until we come to:
 The wars which sprang from the French Revolution, and which far exceeded in cost any the world had ever seen, and taxed the powers of public credit to the utmost. When the world was at rest again the funded debt of England amounted to eight hundred millions.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay continued:
It was in truth a gigantic, a fabulous debt; and we can hardly wonder that the cry of despair should have been louder than ever. But again that cry was found to have been as unreasonable as ever. After a few years of exhaustion, England recovered herself. Yet, like Addison's valetudinarian, who continued to whimper that he was dying of consumption till he became so fat that he was shamed into silence, she went on complaining that she was sunk in poverty till her wealth showed itself by tokens which made her complaints ridiculous. The beggared, the bankrupt society not only proved

able to meet all its obligations, but, while meeting those obligations, grew richer and richer so fast that the growth could almost be discerned by the eye. …
 It can hardly be doubted that there must have been some great fallacy in the notions of those who uttered and of those who believed that long succession of confident predictions, so signally falsified by a long succession of indisputable facts. To point out that fallacy is the office rather of the political economist than of the historian. Here, it is sufficient to say that the prophets of evil were under a double delusion. They erroneously imagined that there was an exact analogy between the case of an individual who is in debt to another individual, and the case of a society which is in debt to a part of itself; and this analogy led them into endless mistakes about the effect of the system of funding. They were under an error not less serious, touching the resources of the country. They made no allowance for the effect produced by the incessant progress of every experimental science, and by the incessant efforts of every man to get on in life. They saw that the debt grew; and they forgot that other things grew as well as the debt.
I submit that the Committee should take encouragement from this dissertation.

Mr. Montague: Is it not true that it is generally agreed that Lord Macaulay invariably sacrificed accuracy to style?

Mr. Boothby: It seems to me that in this case he combined the two with admirable skill. I may not have done justice to him in my reading; but I am sure the prose must have given great pleasure to all hon. Members present this afternoon. Lord Macaulay concludes by rightly observing that those wise philosophers
 greatly overrated the pressure of the burden; they greatly underrated the strength by which the burden was to be borne.
That is profoundly true. I am quite sure that this country, as after every war it has undertaken for the last two centuries, can survive quite easily the burden of debt which presses upon it at the present moment, on one condition—that the people of this country get down to work. If the Government can persuade the people to work hard in the next two or three years we shall come through, and they can borrow what they like. If they cannot persuade the people to work hard, then we shall not come through, whatever happens.

Mr. Mitchison: It is, I believe, well established that the pillars of financial orthodoxy are at any rate


supporting if not actually sitting upon the Benches opposite and it is heartening to some of the financial heretics who may, no doubt, be found on this side of the Committee to discover such startling differences of opinion. In the discussions on this Amendment which have reached to the very limit of relevancy, we have seen the most violent difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and Lord Macaulay speaking together on the one side, and the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on the other. The one side would, if I understand it rightly, confine us to such limits of financial purity that in South Dorset, at any rate, one would in the first year after the war be compelled not to borrow save for purely capital purposes. That is a very remarkable result at the end of six years of war. On the other hand, we were urged with equal eloquence by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to borrow as freely as we could, in order that by so doing, we might be relieved of the burdens of taxation.
I would not have ventured to intervene had it not been for the result which appears to have been produced upon the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset. It was refreshing to hear him praise the patriotism of those who contributed to war savings. It therefore became all the mere puzzling to discover why he considered it necessary to throw all possible public discredit upon war savings as soon as they were asked for by a Government with the political complexion of which he disagrees. It is difficult to discover any reason whatever for the attitude which is so noticeable in his public speeches. There have been moments in the discussion when it seemed to be the object of hon. Members opposite to prevent the Government taking borrowing powers at all. The fact was more properly and 'sensibly put by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who objected merely to the stage at which this proposal was brought forward. What does that come to? The right hon. Gentleman recognises that Clause I is, as I believe it to be, in the usual form of a National Loans Bill following upon the Budget. There is nothing unusual in that provision; it is standard form. Giving this authorisation to the Treasury involves no exceptional gift of powers. The only objection is that this provision is intro-

duced in one Bill, when it might have been made the subject of a second Bill. I suspect an attempt to induce the Government to make two Bills where one would have been sufficient and to delay, to that extent, the progress of the Measures which the Government have in mind.
Is there any substance in the objection? Is it not true that, when the Budget statement is made it includes a statement of the expenditure and of the taxation contemplated? From those two statements can we not clearly discover the amount of money which has to be borrowed in one form or another? Surely it is at that stage that we shall exercise control over the amount of public borrowing during the year to come. Clauses of this character are no doubt necessary, but the Debate upon them must, in my submission, always come on the Budget, and on the Finance Bill which follows it. It is ridiculous to object to a provision of this kind being brought in before instead of after the Budget, when the substance of the matter, and the whole point at issue, will have to be debated in the course of those Debates For those reasons I suggest that the Amendment has no other object than delay, and to make the Government bring in two Bills where one will clearly suffice for the purpose, and of preventing the very interesting discussion which has emerged. One remarkable cat came out of the bag, if I may use that metaphor. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) defend, with such conviction, higher interest rates and assert that a policy of cheap money' was bad for the country because it brought a lower return to the investor.

Mr. Eccles: It will be within the recollection of the Committee, that I said that cheap money was desirable. We all want it, but the industrialist must be able to borrow at cheap rates. Otherwise cheap money is just a farce. I said that if money became cheaper and cheaper as a result of preventing people from borrowing, that was not a good policy. I want money to be very cheap.

Mr. Mitchison: I still find it difficult to follow the hon. Member's meaning and to understand whether he says it is good or bad that money should get cheaper and cheaper. If I have in any way mis-


understood him, I apologise for doing so. In view of the national needs, it seems that the further the policy of cheap money can be pushed the better for the country. If it is bad for this or that industrialist to be unable to borrow money at the moment, his claims must come second to the claims that are made for money and capital expenditure in response to public needs.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I have been dealing with finance for 25 years, but I must ask to be classified as "ignorant," according to the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith). I leave to him the role of sole repository of the financial wisdom of the House. The hon. Member for Kettcring (Mr. Mitchison) unconsciously joins me as one of those clearly ignorant of finance, in view of his misunderstanding of the clear speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles).
The Clause we are discussing foreshadows possible inflation in the future and is a confession of inflation in the past and in the present. That may not be so dangerous as the Committee might imagine. We may indeed be near the end of a wave of inflation and at the beginning of a correcting wave of production. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that if the wave of production grows under the mass exhortation which is to be turned upon it during the next few weeks, under the spotlighted and distinguished exhorters sitting opposite, we may just narrowly escape the worst effects of this inflation. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that inflation, in its best known form, is with us. We have" over-expended. The ratio of our currency and of our fiduciary issue to assets is all wrong. This is the natural result of the war effort. If the corrective volume of output is effective, we shall come through fairly well. One method of reducing the amount of money that the Government may need, under the blank cheque for which they are asking us so glibly today, is if they cease the bad practices that they have got into regarding the purchase of commodities; I add to this their failure to stimulate our very valuable invisible exports.
One of the chief gibes thrown at this side of the Committee on more than one

occasion has been the reference to "private un enterprise." I will reply by saying that nothing is worse than to see what has happened to the handling of commodities by some "Government in-experts" who have had charge of the situation during the past few years. Not so long ago we had a Debate on rubber and rubber prices, and during the Debate on Malaya it became clear that in that commodity alone, as in the case of tin, we were mishandling our opportunities, resulting in excessive Government expenditure. It has also resulted in the loss of gold dollars which we need so badly.
5.0 p.m.
I would, therefore, urge that at the first possible moment the Government, in their drive for exports and production, should devote more time and attention to the invisible exports of the country. They must affect the actual figures in this Clause very materially, and they must equally affect the extremely vital form of trade in which this country specialises and for which it has been known throughout the century. Sooner or later, whether we have Bretton Woods, "Bretton brambles," or any other form of" Brettonry," we shall undoubtedly come to a period when something like open markets and the open evaluation by others 'outside this country, both of our currency and of our trade, can be made. If, during the intervening period until that day arrives, by inaction and by devoting too much time to our visible exports, we fail to stimulate the vitally important source of permanent revenue, we shall regret it. We must make London, Liverpool and our other towns the commercial and financial centres of the world or we shall pay very dearly for our lapse.
The old stock arguments which might be used against open markets no longer have any value. Under a reasonable measure of control, the opening of commodity markets with maximum and minimum prices—not a fixed price—is clearly called for. We cannot make water run along a straight line, but we can make it run between two banks of a canal. We want maximum and minimum prices. I submit to the Government that one way of reducing the amount of money for which they ask in this Clause is to have an energetic policy to open our commodity markets in this country again, to


see that our ports and warehouses will not in five or 10 years' time have grass growing between their cobbles while there is activity at rival Continental ports. Let us bring this country back to prosperity, and rehabilitate it as the leading and trusted entrepÔt centre and broker of the world.

Sir Arnold Gridley: In case there should be any misconception as to the views which are held by those whose political faith coincides with mine, I want to say that I am a convinced apostle of the policy of cheap money. I think it is of vital significance, for many reasons. We were told to what the growth of the National Debt has mounted since before the first world war until today. It was £700 million in 1914, £7,000 million in 1918, and today it is somewhere in the region of £24,000 million. Whether we can afford that huge debt or not depends not on the amount of it, but on the cost of servicing it. The cheaper we can service it by a cheap money policy, surely the more advantageous it is to the whole nation.
With regard to the policy of full employment, I was, in conjunction with business associates of mine the other day, wanting to raise a million of money. I have been borrowing for the last 40 years, but never have I been able to borrow money more cheaply than at this moment, and it was very pleasant to be able to go to the public and raise a million of money at the unheard of rate for preference shares—3½ per cent. The result of that issue was that £1 million was subscribed more than three times. The whole of the money is being spent on capital works. One can see how important this policy is if a large scheme of improvements were to be contemplated, as I think it will be, on our railway systems in the near future. A great many millions could be spent in improving the railways in many directions. Greater electrification schemes would be of advantage to the country and would provide much employment. A great deal depends on whether the money to be spent on these great "capital works can be raised on cheap terms or not. We have had Questions asked in the House during the last few days as to whether the barrage scheme on the Severn is to be proceeded with. That scheme will cost between £18 million and £20 million. A great deal depends

on the rate at which the money can be obtained and on the cost of servicing it. One could go on giving illustrations of the great importance of a cheap money policy. Therefore, I for one, hope the Government will proceed along those lines, always provided—and here I entirely agree with what has been said by some of my hon. Friends—that under the control of investments, those powers shall be wisely exercised and not be too rigidly imposed. When any good industrial activity desires to expand and raise money for the purpose, I hope the Government will deal with matters of that kind in a big, broadminded way and not in a narrow political sense.
The difficulty I find in this part of the Clause which we are seeking to have omitted from the Bill is this. The Financial Secretary will remember that I made a short intervention during the Second Reading Debate, when I said that I had some difficulty in understanding how this money was to be spent, because we had had no information. I reminded him that a few weeks before, the Prime Minister had said that what the nation wanted were more facts and information. I hope the Financial Secretary has come here today prepared to give us a good deal more information than he was able to give during the Second Reading Debate. I am looking forward to getting fuller information from the Financial Secretary, and I hope he has it with him.
There is one other point to which I wish to refer. Under this Clause, and under many other powers and Measures which the Government have now on the Statute Book, or which are in process of finding their way there, the Government are being armed with very wide powers of all kinds. Among those powers they will have the authority—far wider authority than they have at this moment even—to go in for trading of various kinds. I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman can tell us what are the Government's activities—how many people are employed in various places, and so on—but that is information which we are certainly entitled to have. It is easy for anyone to say that Government expenditure is not proceeding at an extravagant rate—it may or may not be—but I for one shall not be prepared to accept such a statement until I have some information which justifies me in doing so.
What we lack today is information. During the war, when expenditure was so high, we had a committee which could go down and see things for themselves, see the expenditure that was going on on the spot. Shortly after the new Government came into power it was asked from this side of the Committee that that committee should be reconstituted for the time being. I think the Government would have been wise had they acceded to that, in their own interest. If they had had a committee of that kind, upon which the party opposite would have the majority, it could have made reports which might have buttressed the present Government against any charge of extravagant expenditure. It is all very well for us to have an Estimates Committee, which looks into what Government Departments propose to spend, and a Public Accounts Committee which goes into public expenditure after the money has already been spent well, or wasted. What I think we want is some body in between, at a time when national expenditure is running at a very high rate, to examine how the money is being spent, where it is going and whether it is being spent wisely or economically.
When we have information about the Government trading activities I hope that the account keeping will not be of the penny note book kind which we have heard referred to in an earlier speech. I hope that accounts will be kept and presented to this Committee on well understood commercial methods. We ought to have—this has been stressed before and I hope it will be stressed again—both capital and revenue accounts in the national trading accounts. I am not sure that the whole financial expenditure of the country ought not to be divided up between capital and revenue. I hope our present Chancellor of the Exchequer will not see the difficulty which former Chancellors have apparently seen in presenting the national accounts on that basis. I am sure we shall have to come to that as time goes on, with the constantly increasing rate of national expenditure, which we hope some day will be reduced at any rate below its present figure. When it has been, I think we can look forward, as trade expands, to a gradually increasing prosperity. The rising national expenditure makes it all the more important that we should be able to look at

the national accounts and to have them presented in a manner which can be understood by the common man. I defy anyone to understand them on the present system under which they are presented.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) into Bretton Wood, unless I am satisfied that it is a bit clearer than the maze I see in it at the present time. I have always had the idea that in a Bill of this kind we are giving the Government power to borrow money to pay interest for previous borrowings. The more we go on borrowing, the more the borrowings accumulate, and the more we have to borrow. I think it is about time that process was stopped. The hon. Member for Stock-port (Sir A. Gridley) said that, at the beginning of the 1914-18 war, our National Debt was £800 million, and at the end of the 1914-18 war it was £7,000 million. Where did that £800 million arise from? From the Boer war. We are still paying interest on money that was borrowed in the Boer war. How much have we paid on the money we borrowed during the Boer war? Why do not we say that the time has come to stop it, that they have had more than they are entitled to? Finish it; liquidate that debt. In 1914 we borrowed money. This is 1946. We have been paying, interest for 32 years. Is it not time that it was stopped? They ought to be told they have had enough. We ought to liquidate that debt, finish it off, pay them no more.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am trying to follow the extremely interesting argument of the hon. Member. Is he advocating that His Majesty's Government should now pay off the debt? Is that what he means when he says "liquidate "? If he is not going to pay it off, how is he going to pay interest in the future?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow-the hon. Member to be tempted by that question. We would be out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I would pay them no more. They have already got more than they are entitled to, far far more. Let us take an example of what it is the other


side want in connection with borrowing. The other day we had the case of a local authority which, 20 years ago, borrowed money from the Prudential at 7 per cent. They asked the Prudential to accept repayment so that they could borrow cheaper money, but the Prudential refuses to accept repayment and the contract carries on for a considerable time. If the local authority got £1,000,000 that means it has paid back to the Prudential £1,400,000 and still owes £1,000,000. Can anybody say it is just that a local authority should pay back £1,000,000 after paying £1,400,000? That is what Members on the either side have been living on; that is how to get rich quickly, but always at the expense of somebody else's labour. Nobody can justify that sort of thing. On one occasion I heard an hon. Member on this side of the Committee talking about a local authority paying 6 per cent, on a loan they got 20 years ago. The Government should put a stop to this robbery that is going on. They should limit this borrowing by putting a finish to the continual payments where already those who participated in this business have obtained far more than they have loaned.
The big problem before the Government in connection with finance and in connection with this borrowing—a question I have already raised with the Chancellor recently—is the question of providing the local authorities with interest-free money in order to get houses. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the solution for this question is the production of commodities. If we can get a greatly increased production of commodities, then we can meet all our obligations. How are we to get the increased production of commodities that we desire, if the masses of the workers have not got decent homes, if they are packed into single rooms, and unable to get the amenities of life to which they are entitled?
The local authorities have the job of building homes, and they cannot do it because there is not a local authority in the country that is not overburdened, not with cheap money but with dear money. The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is our anti-savings Member, but I would be prepared to go with him to the local authority in his constituency and look over the books, and I will guarantee that

his local authority, like mine and every other local authority represented here, is overburdened with heavy interest payments because of dear money, so much ' so that it is almost impossible for them to carry out their responsibilities.
I was speaking at a meeting on this question of finance in my constituency one day—not that I am a financier, I do not want anyone to accuse me of being a financier—[Laughter]—I consider it to be a subject for libel—and a doctor came on to my platform and said that he had been to the local authority and had learnt that they had borrowed £35,000 some 30 years ago, repayable in 1965. In 1965 the local authority will have paid in interest alone £90,000, and will have the £35,000 still to pay. That is what the hon. Members opposite live on. That is what they want—dear money. I say that such continued payments should stop. After the original sum borrowed has been paid, through interest payments plus a certain small allowance, it should be finished up, and no more payments made. If that were done, we might get a little more production, because hon. Members on the other side would have to look for work. If we are to solve our financial problems we must have increased production. Only the workers can give us that, and to get it from the workers, the Government must have power to borrow and use money at the cheapest possible rate, in order to make sure that the reforms to which the Government are pledged are carried out at the speediest possible rate.

Mr. Drayson: When this Bill was read a Second time it was not introduced 'as a streamline Measure, nor did the right hon. Gentleman flourish the pamphlet "Let us Face the Future," because in this Bill we have to deal very realistically with the future, and it will not be very pleasant. Clause 1, to which I particularly wish to refer, virtually provides the Chancellor with a blank cheque to draw any amount he likes. So that he can continue his rake's progress of painting the City red. The trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time is that he thinks he is doing well because he has a rising gilt-edged market. He does not realise that what is more important than a firm gilt-edged market is prosperous British industry. What would it profit the Chancellor if


he reduced the interest on our National Debt by a half of one per cent, if, at the same time, our industry was so crippled, or not adequately encouraged, that it could not take its proper place in the race for world recovery? This Clause also strikes a rather depressing note, because it points out quite clearly to the general public, although they probably know it already, that there will be a large deficit in our Budget for the current year. There is, however, no attempt in this Bill to tell the public just how big that deficit will be. If there were some limiting amount in this Clause, say £1,000 or £2,000 million, there would be some encouragement; and it might help the savings movement, as people would know what amount had to be raised by borrowing up to the end of the financial year on 31st March, 1947.
What the general public want to know particularly is what steps the Government are taking to reduce this very large deficit. Many hon. Members have spoken on that point this afternoon. I see very few signs of any real economy drive on the part of the Government. We have heard that there is to be a production drive, and I would suggest that the two things go hand in hand. Can we not have some sort of inquiry into the swollen Ministries, dotted up and down the country in our luxury hotels, and appearing to the local inhabitants to be doing extremely little productive work? We know there are hundreds of thousands of workers on wartime production. I cannot think of a more soul destroying occupation than having to make armaments which are known to be already obsolete. We believe that there is something sinister in the Government's motive in keeping people on such employment. They are frightened of a rising unemployment figure. But they must be prepared to accept a small measure of unemployment while we are converting our great industries from a wartime to a peacetime basis.
What are the Government doing about the vast dumps of materials all over the country? The ordinary man in the street is justified if he feels that perhaps this deficit could somehow be reduced if those vast stocks of materials were made available to him right away. There has been criticism this afternoon of the Government's dealings in commodities through-

out the world. I would suggest that here again is an example of how the Government are about to miss their market. The time will come when these things will no longer be required, and they will then be so rotted as to be completely useless. The Lord President of the Council said the other day that we are now engaged in what he called "Operation Carey Street.". I suggest that the Chancellor has misread his instructions and that he is engaged in "Operation Carey Street," because that is undoubtedly where we shall be if he carries on with his present restrictive policy. Is he making any attempt to build up a national economy that will be able to support this large and increased National Debt? We have heard this afternoon that these obstacles have always been overcome in the past. But the times Macaulay was writing about did not suffer from the sort of Government we have in this country at the present time.
I believe that the large National Debt we have could well be supported by an economy in which free enterprise was given full play in every walk of life. We may be approaching a position in our national finance where it will be hard to imagine any Britisher wanting to subscribe to the Chancellor's loans. It may be considered unpatriotic to support him in his folly. Business restrictions must be removed. Every encouragement must be given to the country. I submit, and this has already been mentioned this afternoon, that taxation on the lower income groups should be still further reduced. Make overtime free of tax. Do not let it be that part of earnings which suffers the greatest burden of tax in any worker's pay packet. At the same time, fill the shops with goods for the people to buy. Instead,
 Waste and destruction all around we see;
Their only cure is bills and £ s. d.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gndley) I want to express the views that are so widely held on this side of the House in favour of cheap money. There are many benefits to the State from cheap money. Perhaps not the least—it is the only one to which I shall refer—is the easing of the burden on the taxpayer. It is, I think, a very remarkable thing that while


the National Debt should have increased during the last 20 years by some 300 per cent., by the clever handling of the debt service on it the increase in the annual burden has gone up by only something like 30 per cent. But I should like to emphasise this point, that if the Government fail in meeting the menace of inflation by the more delicate and certain weapons that are within their power they may have to revert to this extremely clumsy and upsetting means of dear money—an evil, but a lesser evil than the social injustice and dislocation of real inflation. I think that if the Government fail in the methods they should adopt they will have to be prepared to face using more unpleasant methods.
We are all agreed on the necessity of the Government's borrowing money at this time, but in view of some of the things that have been said on the other side of the House it would be reassuring if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would state quite clearly that the fact that the Government have the powers and the fact that they are able to borrow more cheaply does not mean that for those reasons they are going to spend more than they otherwise would. We are sometimes rather led to think by hon. Members opposite that they are of the opinion that the more the Government borrows the more the Government can spend. In actual fact the amount that can be spent is absolutely limited to the amount the State can produce and the amount that the wretched consumer can be prevented from using himself. The State cannot spend more unless more is produced except by diminishing the resources of the consumer, so it is of the very greatest importance that this simple truth should be made quite clear on every occasion by the Government.
I should like to refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who is in and out of the Chamber so often. He is not here now. I think that for once, perhaps, he was a little in a state of confusion when he referred to the fact that dear money would upset the savings of the people. That, of course, is not so at all. What it might upset would be the speculators. I do not know whether he was considering himself or considering that point of view, but on this side of the House we are not so interested in the speculators as in those people who have invested their savings,

and who are not so interested in the capital value in whether their stocks go up or down. What matters to them is the purchasing power of their money and that, indeed, might be taken from them, and would be taken from them if we had inflation. Dear money cannot possibly cause inflation. Dear money can only be a help towards preventing inflation. It is a clumsy weapon but it may be a necessary one which we should have no hesitation in using if the worst occurs.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: We have had a long and interesting Debate on this Amendment. I had hoped that the length of the Debate would have afforded some opportunity at the end to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to share in the interest. We quite realise that at the beginning he had to be absent meeting the deputation of bond holders, but it certainly has been a long meeting, and I do not know whether his loyal subordinate ought not to telephone to the Treasury to find out that he is none the worse for it. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps it would be better to telephone to Scotland Yard to find out. We have had a Debate which has been remarkable for its breadth, and, equally, for its depth, although I confess that in listening to some of the speakers I have heard the clattering hooves of hobby horses which have been ridden by them before. But the Debate that has taken place does offer a very tempting selection for any speaker who wishes at this stage to reply to it.
I have taken a note of some of the points raised. They include the need for Government economy; the merits in one case or demerits in another of the national savings movement; the danger of Fascist meetings at the Albert Hall; the advantages of cheap money; the merits of Lord Keynes; the effect of housing conditions on the production of goods; and finally, the whole theory of interest. Faced with that galaxy of choice I have been quite unable to decide which of these interesting topics to which to devote myself, and so, I think, I will devote myself to the Amendment on the Order Paper, and the reason why it was put down. I am encouraged to do that out of mercy to the Home Secretary. It is always as well to do the Home Secretary a favour if you can, because you never know but that the time will come—[Interruption.] He has


been sitting there patiently on the Front Bench, and all the time, despite the courteous look on his face, I have felt he is more interested in the future than he is in the immediate present. [An Hon. Member: "Is that in the Amendment?"] Well, perhaps it is not wrong to be merciful. The primary point for which this Amendment was put down, and which has enabled such a very interesting discussion to take place, was to call attention to what we on this side think to have been a quite unnecessary alteration in the procedure of the last six years, an alteration which has resulted in the House of Commons being asked to take a decision of great importance without knowing the necessary facts on which to take it.
Nobody on this side, in putting down this Amendment, wants to deprive the Government of borrowing power to make up the inevitable deficit in the first full year after the war between what is raised by taxation and what has to be paid out in services. Nobody thinks, however great the efficiency of the Government in effecting economies, that, in fact, in that first year, any Government could balance those two figures. We all agree, therefore, that the Government must have these powers. We say that there is no reason why this year the Government should not have done what Governments have done in the preceding six years, and that is, first to make a Budget statement, giving us an estimate of the financial requirements of the year, together with an estimate of the extent to which these powers are to be used and the relationship between taxation and borrowing. When the House of Commons has all the facts, then the Government can ask us for these powers which we shall be glad to give them.
I was very depressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), particularly as he had the supreme advantage of being educated at the same school as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. Although I was prepared to see one back slider in the case of the Chancellor-of the Exchequer, I was depressed to see yet another Member who had not fully benefited from that education. He advanced the astounding proposition that it was ridiculous to object to the House of Commons being asked to pass the Bill first and hear the arguments afterwards. How far has the hon. Gentle-

man deteriorated from that intellectual level which I know he reached some 30 years ago. The Financial Secretary said that he was in a dilemma; it is this dilemma, or what I would call the doctor's dilemma, which we are trying today to resolve. We quite realise that, with the exception of this Clause, the other Clauses have to be through by 31st March, and we are perfectly prepared to give them to the Government, but there is no need why these borrowing powers should be taken before the Budget.
The effect of the Amendment is to give the hon. Member the opportunity, which I know he wants, of making a full disclosure to the Committee of all the facts and a full estimate of all the possibilities, before the powers are taken. We on this side of the Committee were sorry for the hon. Gentleman when this matter was debated before. He was so obviously anxious to give all the information he could, and it was only the stern injunction put on him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which prevented him doing what his conscience urged. We want to resolve that conscience, and to give him an opportunity to provide us with the fullest information which this Committee has a right to demand. Therefore, while we make it quite clear that we believe the Government must have borrowing powers, this Bill ought to be introduced at the proper time, which is after the Budget statement, when we should be prepared to facilitate its passage by every means in our power. We cannot assent at the present time to the Government having these enormous powers without any explanation of the extent to which they will be needed.

5.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) in that we have had a long and interesting Debate. It has roamed fairly widely, and Members have found an opportunity by one means or another, as he said, to ride their particular hobby horses. The speeches he said have had breadth and in some cases depth and to that I am not going to add length if I can avoid it. The right hon. Gentleman knows, none better than he, that it is impossible for me to accede to his request and anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to say when he opens his Budget in a few weeks'


time. I therefore stick to the Amendment. It seeks to take out of Clause 1, which is one of the main operative Clauses of the Bill sub-paragraph (a), which gives the Government power to borrow during the financial year 1946-47 up to the gross amount of Supply granted; plus £250 million in order to tide them over the period between 1st April, 1947, and such time thereafter as is necessary until another Bill of the same kind can be introduced and carried through this House. In answer to what the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said about the wording of this paragraph, I have to say that we have exactly copied the words of the National Loans Acts passed annually through the House since 1939. Therefore, if he finds the wording sloppy I can only tell him that it is rather late in the day to discover it. At any rate, this form of words has been sufficient during the war to cover what has been needed.
Speaker after speaker has indicated that by giving us the powers of this paragraph the Government will be taking what they described as unlimited powers to borrow money. That is not true. The Committee knows quite well that all we are asking for is power to borrow to cover a possible deficit or the outturn of the year 1946-47. I have come to the House as has every Financial Secretary each year during the war. The only difference between previous occasions and this—and the House frankly faced it and discussed it at some length during the Second reading—is that the House on previous occasions has heard the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before being asked to grant these powers. The fact that the Committee is not fully seized of the expected deficit on the next financial year is, as I said on Second reading, a dilemma which the Government realises. But it is essential that we should have this Bill before 31st March, that is, before the Chancellor makes his Budget speech, because there are other provisions in the Bill which it is necessary we should get through by that date. It is not essential by itself, I agree, that this particular paragraph should be passed by then. Nevertheless there are checks which would prevent excessive borrowing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

These will continue to reside in this House. There is no real reason therefore why the Committee should not give us these powers a few weeks in advance of the normal date.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Financial Secretary tell us what he means by "sufficient checks" and exactly what are the checks on borrowing? There may be checks on expenditure, but what are they on borrowing?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The check on borrowing is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot borrow in excess of the Supply voted by this House. I said during the Second Reading Debate—it emerged quite clearly then and the point was made I think by other speakers—that although the Government are taking these powers, they do not intend to borrow up to the full total of the Supply granted. They cannot borrow beyond the amount of supply granted by the House and that in itself is a check. The Civil Estimates have been published and also the Defence Estimates and the House is well aware what the total will be. It will be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow in addition to the total Supply which the House has .granted and I might add that the House has not, so far, granted the major part of next year's Supply on the Votes. Therefore, the House will, in a very real sense, continue to control the borrowing powers of the Government. I think that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have expressed doubts whether these borrowing powers should be given.
I can say however, in addition, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer confidently expects that during the next financial year, that is 1946-47, the pro-portion of Budget expenditure to be met from borrowing will be appreciably less than it will be in the present financial year. I might also add that if anything like these borrowing powers are necessary for the financial year 1947-48, it is hoped that it will be possible to consider the necessary legislation after the Budget statement is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he continues to hold his office, or by his successor. During the war years the House gave these powers year after year. I have today given an additional assurance, and the House has the knowledge that, if, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has opened


his Budget, it feels dissatisfied with his statement, it can, with the machinery open to it, stop Supply. That is the real check. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will now allow us to pass on to the next Clause or, if the Opposition still feels

dissatisfied, that we shall take the matter to the vote.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause "

The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 144.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllister, G.


Adamson, Mrs. J L.
Edelman, M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McGovern, J.


Allighan, Garry
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Austin, H. L.
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McNeil, H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Baird, Capt. J.
Gallacher, W
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Balfour, A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marquand, H. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Gibbins, J.
Martin, J. H.


Barton, C.
Gilzean, A.
Mathers, G.


Battley, J. R. 
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, C. P.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Gooch, E. G.
Messer, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Goodrich, H. E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mikardo, Ian


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Montague, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, Capt. W D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hardy, E. A
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Buchanan, G.
Haworth, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Burke, W. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hicks, G.
Oliver, G. H.


Callaghan, James
Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.


Chetwynd, Capt, G R.
House, G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Hubbard, T.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Lt, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Collins, V. J.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Perrins, W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Irving, W. J.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.



Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Corvedale, Viscount
John, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Ship'ey)
Price, M. P.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Daggar, G.
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Ranger, J.



Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Rankin, J


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kenyon, C.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
King, E. M.
Reeves, J


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Robens, A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lang, G
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Diamond, J
Levy, B. W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dobbie, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sargood, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G
Scott-Elliot, W. 


Douglas, F. C. R.
Longden, F.
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lyne, A. W. 
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Dye, S.
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Shurmer, P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Simmons, C. J.
Thorneycroft, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Skeffington-Lodge, T C.
Thurtle, E.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Skinnard, F. W.
Tiftany, S.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Titterington, M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tolley, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Smith, T. (Normanton) 
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Solley, L. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williamson, T.


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S P.
Willis, E.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wadsworth G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Walkden, E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Stamford, W.
Walker, G. H.
Woodburn, A.


Steele, T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Woods, G. S


Stephen, C.
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. F.


Stokes, R. R.
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stross, Dr. B.
Watson, W. M.
Zilliacus, K.


Stubbs, A. E.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)



Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Weitzman, D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. J. Henderson and


Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Captain Michael Stewart.




NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Glyn, Sir R.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. 
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Graham-Little, Sir E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A V.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.



Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bower, N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Renton, D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Hurd, A.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bullock, Capt M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Carson, E.
Jennings, R.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col R. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H.
Stuart, Rt Hon. J.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col M. (Solihull)
Studholme, H. G.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Touche G. C.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W S.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eccles, D. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Erroll, Col F. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Marples, A. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A H E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Commander Agnew and Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]

Resolution reported:
 That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of the unpaid balance of principal and all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of a loan to John Henry Thompson, Annie Thompson and Arthur Thompson.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.8 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I understand that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they did not put down an Amendment to this Clause, would like some further explanation as to why we propose to change the manner in which the Commissioners are appointed, but I do not know if there is really much I can add to what I said when we took the Second Reading of this Bill. Perhaps those who read that Debate will remember that these Commissioners are appointed under Section 12 of an Act which was passed in 1875, and regularly every five years from that time until 1941 the Commissioners names actually appeared in a Bill which passed through this House. Fairly recently we had a Bank of England Bill where another method of appointing directors was laid down, namely, appointment by the King. We suggest that that is a much better method than what I described on Second Reading as the rather archaic method laid down for the appointment of these Commissioners under the Public Works Loans Act of 1875. We not only seek to change the method of appointment; we also suggest that they should serve for a stated time of four years, and that there should be 12 of them. In the past, the number has, I gather, varied from 16 downwards, and the number at the present time, I think, about 11. We propose that the number should be limited

to 12, and that they should serve for four years, except during the initial period when they will retire four at a time during each of the first three years, and thereafter, according to their appointment, at the end of every fourth year.
They receive no emoluments In the past, they have been public-spirited men who have given their time quite freely to this work. It is more than likely that in the immediate years ahead they will have much more work to do and certainly far more than they had to do during the war years. It may well be that some of these Commissioners will not be able to serve for the whole of the period for which they are appointed. It is, therefore, necessary that we should have a much more flexible method of appointing them. For these reasons, we ask the House to accept our proposal as the proper one for the future. We have no intention of making changes in the Commissioners simply for the sake of making changes, but we feel that, as and when Commissioners go, for one reason or another, we should be able to change them by a much easier method than in the past. We have no intention of altering the powers conferred on them. Those powers will continue as hitherto. All we suggest is that the method of appointing them should be similar to that laid down in the Bank of England Act, which is much more up to date and, in our opinion, a much better method all round.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for his explanation. I am not sure that I feel this new method of appointment has so very much to commend it. There seem to me to have been advantages in the original procedure. We do not intend to press the matter, although we did feel that it was our duty to draw attention to the change that was being made. I would like to join with the Financial Secretary in expressing sincere admiration which hon. Members on this side feel for the work of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They are gentlemen who do a great deal of unpaid public service, and the whole Committee ought to feel indebted to them.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [11th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945

CLASS II

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.

Resolutions reported:
1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services.

UNITED NATIONS

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £340,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith."

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GREECE

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for providing a credit to the Greek Government for the stabilisation of the Greek currency."

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to de fray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."

CLASS V

OLD AGE PENSIONS

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty. to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the payment of Old Age Pensions and pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."

CLASS VII

ROYAL PALACES

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding; £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to

defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid."

POLICE BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

6.20 p.m

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
 That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 8, and Clause 12, page 13, line 8, standing on the Order Paper in my name.
The first of these Amendments will enable me to fulfil a pledge which I gave in the Committee, and the second deals with the difficult point that was raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) during the Committee stage, which I hope to be able to deal with in the way indicated on the Order Paper.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Milner in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Abolition of non-county borough police forces.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "and," to "and," in line 11, and to insert:
 shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date, and, while performing similar duties shall, in respect thereof, receive not less salary or remuneration than the salary or remuneration to which they would have been entitled if they had not been transferred.
This Amendment deals with the position of transferred officers and servants, other than policemen, who may leave the service of a non-county borough under the Bill, and enter the service of a county police authority. It was felt by some hon. Members of the Standing Committee that the present wording of the Clause might mean that if the county service had better conditions than the borough service, the officer transferred might be compelled to remain on the level on which he had been in the borough service. I cannot think that is a very likely interpretation, but I have in my time known legalistic clerks of councils who delighted


in giving such interpretations to Acts of Parliament. In order that there may be no excuse for that, I have submitted this Amendment, which ensures that a man shall receive not less salary or remuneration, so that if he is in a borough where the conditions are better than in the county he will, if transferred, remain on the old level, whereas if conditions in the county are better he may be promoted to the higher level.

Mr. Grimston: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment which, as he says, fulfils a pledge he gave upstairs. It certainly covers the point and we are very much obliged to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(Consolidation agreements under County Police Act, 1840, etc., 3 and 4 Vict., c 88, 19 and 20 Vict., c. 69.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 8 to 16, and to insert:
 (6) In relation to the determination of a consolidation agreement under this section the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if references therein to a transferred area included references to the county police area as well as to the borough police area, and as if references therein to an amalgamation scheme and to a scheme under this Act revoking an amalgamation scheme included respectively references to a consolidation agreement and to a scheme of agreement under this section; and provision may be made—
where the consolidation agreement is determined by an amalgamation scheme or by an agreement under this section, by that scheme or agreement;
in any other case, by an order made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the authorities concerned or by an agreement made between those authorities with the approval of the Secretary of State."
This is a somewhat more difficult and really highly technical Amendment that deals with a matter first brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) in the Standing Committee. It was discovered at that time that there were certain non-county boroughs, some of which, as in the case of the borough which gives its name to the hon. Members constituency, had never had police powers but had in fact

entered into arrangements with the county police authority with regard to certain matters relating to the police. It first appeared, in the case of Weston-super-Mare, that the borough, for some reason which was difficult to discover, enjoyed a great financial privilege and is in fact at the moment enjoying a rate of some 4.4 pence in the £ less than the county police rate. It was suggested that we should make some arrangement by which a sudden rise in the rate to that extent should be minimised, and I introduced a complicated escalator clause which appeared to meet the point. Then it transpired that while they had a rebate of 4.4 pence in the £ on the rate, they were under an obligation to pay to the county for 30 years the sum of £2,718 annually in respect of police expenses. It seems to me a very complicated way of running rival swings and roundabouts enterprises, but undoubtedly it would be very unfair to put Weston-super-Mare on the escalator clause and relieve them of the £2,718 simultaneously, or to say that after all hope of police powers had vanished they should continue to pay £2,718 per annum.
There are similar agreements of the most amazing complexity—I would almost say irrationality—in different parts of the country, and this Amendment will enable the Secretary of State, when amalgamations take place, to deal with these matters by a scheme so that he will be able to take into account the figures on both sides of the balance sheet and arrive at an equitable arrangement between the borough and the county. Some of these arrangements are the result of consolidation agreements entered into many years ago when a non-county borough that had a police force agreed to that force being consolidated in the county voluntarily. I desire to have the necessary powers so that when the new arrangement comes into operation on 1st April, 1947, I may be able to deal fairly with both sets of ratepayers, those of the borough and those of the county involved.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment. I very much appreciate what he has done. It was a very difficult and highly technical problem and one which only matured in our minds at the very last stages of the discussion of this Bill upstairs. I cannot help feeling that this is an example of how dangerous it is to try to legislate too


fast. There was not very much opportunity for local authorities who had been bound in the past by these extraordinary regulations—and I agree that many of them are extraordinary—to consider the effect of the proposals under the Bill, and in fact unless the words now on the Order Paper had been inserted, I think many of them would have suffered considerable loss. The right hon. Gentleman has met the need and I express my gratitude. At the same time I should like to say that the fact that this was raised at the very latest stages was no fault of mine and I think he appreciates that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

CLAUSE I—(Abolition of non-county borough police forces.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PEAKE:

In page 1, line 8, after "borough," insert:
 of which the population according to the census of 1931 or to the latest estimate before the appointed day of the Registrar-General (whichever shall be the higher) was less than thirty thousand.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. Do I understand that it is not your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the Amendment standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, which raises the question of the abolition of the non-county borough police force?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is so. Mr. Speaker has decided not to select that Amendment.

Mr. Peake: Would I be in Order, Sir, in making a submission to you with a view to asking you to reconsider the decision on that matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has made his decision, and it would not be proper for me to hear arguments contrary to it.

Mr. Mack: Does that mean that the whole question of the non-county boroughs cannot be discussed on Clause 1?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members can only discuss Amendments which Mr. Speaker has decided to select; they cannot discuss others.

Mr. S. O. Davies: May I ask for guidance on this matter, Sir? Is it to be understood that if a Bill is taken upstairs, and then brought back to this House, we, on the Floor of the House, are, in future, to be deprived of making any efforts towards amending that Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, not in the least. Mr. Speaker has selected certain Amendments, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of speaking on those Amendments.

Mr. Davies: Further to that, Sir, I have had handed to me the Amendments which you do not propose to call and it is obvious now to those of us who strongly object to this Bill that we are to be deprived of the opportunity of expressing our opinions and from making any effort to correct the shortcomings of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to question Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Jennings: I would like to ask your guidance on this point. I agree that Mr. Speaker has made his decision, but is it not competent for you to reconsider the matter on application?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. Mr. Speaker takes the decision and, quite clearly, the Deputy-Speaker cannot override that decision.

Mr. Mack: On a point of Order. Surely this is a very serious matter and, with great respect, we are entitled to have some guidance from you. May I put it this way—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I have indicated that hon. Members are not entitled to question Mr. Speaker's decision. Hon. Members have a course they can adopt on this and other matters on which they wish to question the decision of the Chair. Quite clearly I cannot allow any further questioning or discussion of Mr. Speaker's decision on this matter.

Mr. Mack: Further to that point of Order. I do not question Mr. Speaker's decision, but if I ask you for guidance surely that is well within the limits of


Order. I only ask this—I am not questioning the decision at all—but can you, Sir, guide those of us in the House, who are very much perturbed and concerned, as to the method we can possibly adopt to get this matter discussed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot do so here. It is quite clear that the matter is not debatable.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "appointed day," and to insert "date of transfer."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The appointed day in Clause 1 (3, b) is wrong, since the Clause will operate in relation to county boroughs which are demoted to the non-county borough status after the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Adjustment of rates in consequence of abolition of non-county borough police forces.)

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from the first "area," to "under," in line 32.
This, too, is a drafting Amendment. Clause 3 (4) will translate the reference to the county police area in line 31 in Clause 2 into a reference to a combined area, and the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment are therefore unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Voluntary schemes for the amalgamation of county and county borough -police forces.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "scheme" to insert:
and comprising only members of the police authorities whose areas are amalgamated by the scheme.
The genesis of this Amendment was the fear or—-perhaps that is too strong a word to use—the anxiety felt upon all sides of the House that this Bill might be used to create a national police force, or something approaching it, not, I may say, by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Home Secretary, but by someone who may later reign in his stead. Hon. Members will observe that under Clause 3, which provides details of the scheme to be used if com-

pulsory amalgamations are brought about, Subsection (2) (b) contains these words:
 the maintenance of the combined force by a combined police authority constituted in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
In the proceedings in Committee I moved an Amendment to try to make it perfectly clear at this point that the Home Secretary could not become either a part of a combined police authority or the combined police authority itself, as it did not seem to me to be clear in the Bill that he could not take on that function under a scheme. At that time I was referred to Clause 5, which defines a combined police authority, and I think it will be clear if hon. Members look at it The first few words are:
 The combined police authority constituted by an amalgamation scheme shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as may be prescribed by the scheme.
We wanted it made perfectly clear that the Home Secretary could not be a representative, and therefore a part or the whole of a combined police authority. The Attorney-General was not able to be present at the Committee meetings but the Home Secretary was good enough to obtain an opinion from him, and I would like to read it to the House. The learned Attorney-General said this:
 I have read the report of the debate in Committee and considered the point raised, namely, the danger that the Secretary of State might nominate himself as the police authority for a Combined Police Area, thus in effect opening the door to the nationalisation of the police forces.
 Clause 4 (1) "—
which is now, of course, Clause 5 (1) under the amended Bill—
 provides that the Combined Police Authority shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as ' may be prescribed by the scheme,' and in my view it would be inconsistent with this Clause for the Secretary of State to appoint himself the authority for the combined force, since the Clause clearly requires representatives of each constituent area and is mandatory and not merely discretionary. Moreover, the Clause contains no provision for anyone who is not a representative of a constituent area to be included in the combined authority. It would, I think, be quite inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill for the Secretary of State to prescribe himself as ' a representative ' of one of the constituent areas, and I feel no doubt, that Clause 4 (1) taken alone precludes the possibility of his prescribing himself as the representative of all the constituent areas."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5th February, 1946; c. 147-8.]


We have there the opinion of the Attorney-General that the point we wish to protect is provided for in the Bill. But, on considering the matter, I still think that rather than let it rest on the opinion, however good, of the Attorney-General, it would be just as well to insert the words I propose, in the Bill itself. It makes it perfectly clear that the Home Secretary cannot in any case become himself either a part of or the combined police authority under an amalgamation scheme. I hope the Home Secretary will consider accepting these words. That would not provide anything which he does not intend should be a part of the Bill. Instead of resting the matter on the opinion of the Attorney-General, it should be put into the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that it is desirable to put the words in, having regard to the fact that it is merely, so to speak, dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the opinion the Attorney-General has given.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has just said, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept it because, in fact, it is not limiting him in any way. It is merely putting on to paper that on which the Home Secretary himself found it necessary to get counsel's opinion. If the Home Secretary, with all his learning and knowledge, had to consult counsel before the position was made absolutely clear to him, I feel that the private citizen should have it made so simple and clear on paper that he, in turn, shall not have to consult counsel when the Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Ede: I think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) will find that his memory, for once, has played him false. I did not have to go to the Attorney-General for advice on this point. I expressed a certain opinion and was quite certain it was right. Hon. Members opposite who were serving on the Committee expressed doubts, and I was anxious to resolve those doubts. They suggested that the proper person to resolve them was one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I went to the Attorney-General and procured a letter which I read to the Committee and which now the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has read. I was never in any doubt whether

it would be possible for any Home Secretary to be the representatives—in the plural—of more than one police authority. I know at least one past Home Secretary who has been alluded to as Jehovah. But after all, the thing about Jehovah is that He is a unity and therefore not capable of what would be required to comply with the situation presented by this Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
I am bound to point out that, in spite of what has been said, these words would limit me in the selection 01 the combined police authority. It has to be borne in mind that the police authorities are not the councils concerned. In the case of a county borough, the police authority is the watch committee In the case of a county, the police authority is the standing joint committee. It may be that a county borough which had been, after all processes had been gone through, brought into a combined police authority, could then defeat me, or the Secretary of State for the time, by declining to appoint a watch committee Then I would have no body from which I could select the borough representatives. A county borough might, by the process of selecting the members of its watch committee when the watch committee had lost its police powers, exclude from the watch committee, certain members of the council who might be very desirable as members of the combined police authority.
During the Committee stage, I expressed views I hold very strongly with regard to standing joint committees. In view of the peculiar way in which those bodies are constituted, it might very well be that either the justices, or the county councils, would deprive me of the proper width of choice by declining to put certain appropriate people on the standing joint committees. I could not then bring them on to the combined police authorities. What I am prepared to do is to say that in selecting the representatives on the combined police authorities, I will not go outside the bodies who elect the appropriate committees which become on appointment the police authorities for the boroughs and the counties. That, I think, is what this Amendment is really aimed at-a desire that a person who is not a member either of the borough council in the case of the county borough, or of the county council or' the justices in Quarter Sessions in the case of a county


—should not be appointed. I am quite prepared to say that that will be the line I shall adopt in any case where a combined police authority is set up. I do not think that is anything more than a common sense view. But to confine me to members of the police authority, would mean that I should be limited to the members of the committees that the parent authorities have set up. I think that might, in certain circumstances, limit me far too much.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
 (g) the delegation to any constituent authority of any functions of the combined police authority under Section five of the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, or under the House to House Collections Act, 1939.
This Amendment, with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, page 24, line 16, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) relates to non-county boroughs, and fulfils an undertaking which the Home Secretary gave in Standing Committee to make special provision with regard to street collections and house to house collections.
The Amendment makes it clear that an amalgamation scheme has to make provision for the delegation to constituent authorities of any functions of the combined police authority in respect of street collections and house to house collections under the 1916 and the 1939 statutes. That will mean that a county borough which is included in an amalgamation scheme, although it ceases to have separate police powers, can continue to exercise the functions of a police authority under these statutes, under powers delegated to it by a combined police authority. A request was made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) about the question of retaining power under Section 1 (4) of the House to House Collections Act, 1939, under which a chief officer of police has power to issue certificates of exception in respect to local collections, and it was desired that that power should be exercised by some responsible police officer in the borough as opposed to the chief constable in the county or a combined area.
The answer to that question is that under Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1939 a

chief officer of police has power to delegate his functions to an officer of a rank not below that of inspector. It is proposed to advise chief constables of county and combined forces that in the case of amalgamation schemes, where power is delegated under the scheme to constituent authorities in those cases where non-county boroughs retain their functions under these Acts and under the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, they shall delegate their functions under Section 1 (4) to the police officer who is in charge of the borough or division in which the borough is situated. The difficulty can well be met administratively, and no statutory prevision is necessary. It will be found that the Home Secretary, with this Amendment, and the Amendment to which I have referred in the case of the non-county boroughs, has implemented his promise.

Mr. David Jones: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for inserting this Amendment. It is held by the smaller non-county boroughs that these are functions peculiar to the non-county borough itself, and the provision which has been made is satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out, "made before the appointed day."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a purely drafting Amendment to Subsection (4). I must confess that I cannot make head or tail of Subsection (4), with or without the words he proposes to omit from it. The Subsection states:
 In relation to a borough comprised in a county to which an amalgamation scheme made before the appointed day applies, Section 1 of this Act shall have effect as if for references therein to the police area of the county, the county police force and the council of the county there were substituted respectively references to the combined area …

I cannot for the life of me see how Clause 1 of this Bill, which deals with the abolition of non-county borough forces, can in any way apply in the case of amalgamation schemes, because these non-county borough police forces will, by virtue of Clause 1, have been abolished, and therefore an amalgamation scheme


under Clauses 3 or 4 can only relate to the county boroughs or to the county police forces. I must confess that, even leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit, I cannot see the meaning of the Subsection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little further explanation.

Mr. Ede: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that I am not quite sure how far an elucidation would be relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: What is the effect of leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit?

Mr. Ede: After the passage of the Bill it may be that certain county boroughs will, on the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners, be reduced from county borough status to the status of non-county boroughs. Then they will, of course, lose their police powers, and a scheme for dealing with such a new non-county borough which was formerly a county borough, might be made after the appointed day for this Bill. It is necessary to have a provision in the Bill to meet such a contingency. Subsection (4) of this Clause is aimed at dealing with that situation. This Amendment to leave out the words "made before the appointed day" is moved because if that were not done, a special Act of Parliament would be required after the passing of the appointed day, in order to deal with the situation which would arise over a borough which, having ceased to be a county borough, had lost is police powers, and the county had no power to pick up the police powers which had been lost by the county borough. One might have the somewhat anomalous position of an area of a former county borough in which no one had any police powers which could be exercised.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 42, leave out "Section one," and insert" the foregoing provisions."

In page 4, line 2, leave out "that Section" and insert "Section one of this Act."—[Mr. Oliver.]

CLAUSE 4.—Power of Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes.)

7.0 p.m

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after "a," to insert "county or."
I would ask the House also to consider the following Amendments—in page 4, line 28, at the end to insert "county or "; in line 30, after the second "the," to insert" county or "; and in line 32, after "the," to insert "county or."
These Amendments represent the fulfilment of the undertaking which was given in the Standing Committee that the proviso to Clause 4 (1) would be extended to apply to counties with a population of 100,000 as well as county boroughs. The effect is to give an absolute guarantee to counties with a population of 100,000 that they cannot be amalgamated against their will with an area with a larger population than their own.

Mr. Grimston: As the hon. Gentleman says, this Amendment is the fulfilment of an undertaking, given in the Committee, to cover this point of bringing in counties as well as county boroughs, and I should like to thank him for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out" one hundred," and to insert" sixty."

Major Peter Roberts: On a point of Order. I would like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether it would be in Order to discuss, with this Amendment, the Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—in page 4, line 31, to leave out from "area" to the end of the Subsection.

Mr. Speaker: I think it might be convenient. I think the two Amendments cover the same ground.

Mr. Grimston: When this Bill first went upstairs, there was no limitation on the scope and size of the amalgamations which might be brought about under it. In response to the feeling, which existed on all sides of the Committee, that this was too wide a power, and might leave the door ajar to too large amalgamations over the country, the Home Secretary met the


Committee by inserting the proviso at the end of Clause 4 (1). Another Amendment was moved, also on the lines of that which we are now discussing. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee, if I indicated the difference between the two. Under the proviso which the Home Secretary has inserted, no county borough or county, in accordance with the Amendment which has just been accepted, with a population of 100,000 or more, can be amalgamated compulsorily with a county or county borough larger than that. Of course, that does go some distance in limiting the size of these amalgamations For these small mercies we thank the Home Secretary. In my opinion, however, it does not go far enough. I would prefer an absolute limitation of the size of amalgamations which can take place This would be achieved by the Amendment to which the hon. and gallant' Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) has just referred. I would prefer that, but I want to say a word or two about the Amendment which I am moving. It would apply the Home Secretary's principle to boroughs and counties of 60,000 people. Here let me interpolate that the Home Secretary is again flying in the face of the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House which reported in 1932. It said:
… your committee therefore recommend that no county borough should be deprived of its rights to maintain a separate police force.
Perhaps I might add also that we are, in some degree, departing from this recommendation, because within certain limits we are prepared to deprive county boroughs of that right. I would like to read to the House a list of the county boroughs which may be affected if the provision is left as it is with the limit of 100,000. They are county boroughs which may be compulsorily amalgamated against their will if the Bill is left in its present form. They are Newport, Wallasey, Burnley, Halifax, Reading, Northampton, Rochdale, York Grimsby, Ipswich, Wigan, Warrington, Oxford, Southport, Bootle,Rotherham Barnsley, Merthyr Tydfil, Bath, Lincoln, Barrow, Hastings, Tynemouth, Exeter and Don-caster. I think the House will agree that

those are boroughs of importance. I know that misgivings have been aroused in their minds—if a borough can have a mind; the House will understand what I mean—by reason of some remarks which the Home Secretary made in the Committee. During that particular discussion it was thought that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that they were all going to fall under consideration for compulsory amalgamation. The purpose of this Amendment is to give those important places the same rights as those which places of 100,000 population now have under the proviso.
There is another reason, which is that the instructions which have been given by Parliament to the Boundary Commission are to the effect that no county borough should, ordinarily, be deprived of its status as a county borough, unless its population is less than 60,000. I think it is wholly reasonable that the figure which has been chosen by Parliament, above which a county should not be deprived of its status, should also be incorporated in this Bill, and that county boroughs, of the size and importance I have indicated, should not be forcibly amalgamated with places larger than themselves without their consent. I believe that, without doing any damage to intentions, from the point of view of the efficiency of the police forces, the Home Secretary would do well to reduce this figure, particularly as it will bring the Bill into line with the instructions which Parliament has given as to status to the Boundary Commission.
This to my mind is only a compromise. We would like to go further and give an absolute guarantee that there should be no amalgamations of county boroughs without their consent. I have given up any idea of the Home Secretary agreeing to that, but I think that we ought to insist that he goes this step further, and makes this provision that he has introduced applicable to places of 60,000 people, and over, instead of only to those of 100,000 people and over.

Major Peter Roberts: I support the Amendment. My constituency is part of the city of Sheffield, which has a population of over 500,000, and, adjoining it, is the area of Rotherham, which has a population of under 100,000. I understand that, with regard to this Amendment, the figure chosen is 60,000. In the


Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft) said that, if this Clause went through as it was, it would be possible for Rotherham and Sheffield to be amalgamated by the Home Secretary, because Sheffield, being above the size of Rotherham, could say nothing about it, and Rotherham, being below the size of Sheffield, could also say nothing about it. After reading the speech of the Home Secretary in Hansard, I thought that he showed no intention of trying to join Rotherham and Sheffield, but he went further and said there was a corridor, or some geographical area between the two. In point of fact, that is not so and there is a boundary of about three miles between Rotherham and Sheffield.
Sheffield citizens, as far as I know, are very satisfied with their police force, which is very efficient and very well run, and I do not think that there is a desire on the part of anybody for a combined authority to be imposed upon them. I understand that the Minister does not intend to do this, but the Clause as it now stands will enable powers to be given into the hands of the Home Secretary, not, possibly, the present right hon. Gentleman, but those who come after him, and I can see no reason whatever why, if the right hon. Gentleman has these ideas, they should not go down in the Bill. I hope he will reconsider the matter and be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stokes: I want to say a word on this Amendment. I do not entirely support it because I find myself in some difficulty in deciding what the figure should be. I do not really know how the Secretary of State arrives at the figure of 100,000; I am more in doubt how the proposers of the Amendment arrive at 60,000. My constituency has received honourable mention from the mover of the Amendment. We are in the somewhat precarious position that we now have a population of 93,000 with our boundaries about to be extended, and so, while I should not like to tie the Home Secretary down to a particular figure, I should have thought that it was reasonable to ask him to have regard to the circumstances of each case, and that, where there are populations very nearly approaching the figure which the right hon. Gentleman fixes, some assurance should be given to these county boroughs

that they will not be forcibly amalgamated with other areas.

7.15 p.m

Mr. Grierson: I have been requested by people in my constituency to emphasise the view that the population figure ought to be nothing less than 60,000. Carlisle is a very ancient city, with a long historic background. I believe it is true to say that we have had organised government since the year 1240. We have a long tradition and a great deal of civic pride. Carlisle, geographically, is in an isolated position, and we feel that, in view of the importance of the city, which is the gateway to Scotland and has many problems which need a special organisation, we are definitely entitled to some consideration.
The estimated population at the present time is somewhere in the region of 70,000, but it is true to say that, at the weekends, in our city, there is regularly a population of at least 100,000 people. During the war, we had an exceptional experience. We were a reception area, and, at that particular time, it was our duty to receive at least 7,500 evacuees. Furthermore, we have employed in that area, in the various factories that were commenced during the war, at least 3,500 people. I was at a meeting a few weeks ago, as a member of my local authority and there were at least go representative's present. I was amazed at the support given by the delegates present to the view that this amalgamation scheme ought to be annulled, but I feel that, in the circumstances, after having heard what was said, if I put the point of view of the city of Carlisle, I shall have played my part.
We, in Carlisle, have been able, during the last few years, to build a modern police and fire station, equipped with all the modern amenities, as far as police work is concerned. In view of that, and of the fact that we have made special efforts in order to educate the members of the police force and give them all the necessary facilities, we may feel that, in Carlisle, we were playing a very important ' part in regard to police duties. We have, on many occasions, had various difficulties in the regulating of our traffic, and members of our police force have had to specialise in order to make themselves conversant with this particular aspect of their work. We have certain old charters


and by-laws of a special character in our city, and I feel, therefore, that we would be doing a grave injustice if this Bill was passed in its present form limiting the population to 100,000. I sincerely hope the Home Secretary will give this point his very favourable consideration. I have, during the last few weeks, been approached by the Watch Committee with a view to ventilating their feelings here this evening, and I feel that, having done so, I have played my part.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I would like to urge that the Home Secretary should give way on this particular Amendment. I represent one of the cities that has received honourable mention, and I have been specially asked to urge the Home Secretary in this particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen the figure of 100,000, and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has asked why it should be 60,000. It is not merely that the figure of 60,000 suits all the parties interested, but it is, I understand, laid down in the instructions given to the Boundary Commission by this House that the particular figure of 60,000 was chosen as the one for which no loss of county borough amenities or rights should be suffered. Therefore, I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt that precedent and choose the figure of 60,000.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled that a discussion may take place on the following Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends—
In page 4, line 28, after "upwards,'' insert
 or where a county borough has an authorised establishment of more than one hundred.
—during the discussion on the Amendment which is now before the House. The purpose of the Amendment standing in my name is to limit the powers of the Home Secretary in ordering a compulsory amalgamation in the case of county boroughs which have a police establishment 01 over 100 persons. In Committee the Home Secretary, in dealing with this particular point, said:
 It will be noticed that in the two following Amendments a further criterion is estab-

lished—a police force with an establishment of 100. The reason I did not include that in my Amendment is that the size of the police force is determined by the Secretary of State. He authorises the establishment, and therefore, if there were a police force with, say, an establishment of 102, it would not be within the power of this hypothetical Secretary of State, who was anxious to do the unreasonable thing, to reduce the size of that police force to 99." —[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 31st January, 1946; c. 87.]
I agree that that is absolutely true, as the Home Secretary has stated, but I do feel that the right hon. Gentleman who endeavoured to reduce a police force from 102 to 99 under conditions such as that, would be seriously challenged by this House before it would permit him to do such a low-down, dirty trick. I am perfectly certain that the present Home Secretary, by including in the Bill the words suggested in my Amendment, would carry out the intention quite honourably and I am sure he would not resort to the trick of reducing an establishment, so as to effect amalgamation.
My own constituency and that of Hastings axe county boroughs, and we cater very largely for holiday traffic. We have a winter season and a summer season. During the year there are very few months when our population is not over 100,000 persons. Our stable population is only 59,000, so that we are not covered by the 60,000 Amendment. Our average all the year round population is clearly in excess of the 100,000 mentioned and that is why in my own constituency, in Hastings and in other county boroughs, we have what appears to be a very large police force for the size of the borough. This is an extremely reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will deal with the case when he comes to reply. There is one further point I. would make. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson), said that, having ventilated the case of his constituency, he thought he had done his duty and need do nothing more about the matter. May I assure him that his duty is not completed until he goes into the Lobby, to support the views, which he has so ably expressed in the House?

Mr. Deer: I appeal to the Home Secretary to give consideration to the question of the status of the county boroughs which have for so long had police powers and have used those powers reasonably and satisfactorily, even if he


cannot give consideration to the figure of 60,000 mentioned in the Amendment. I raise this question because my own constituency, the City of Lincoln, was mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. In the case of Lincoln, which is both a Cathedral city and an industrial city, we are surrounded by a large rural area whose problems, both in regard to police and everything else, are entirely dissimilar to that of my constituency. I mentioned the fact upstairs that we were regarded as an oasis in a desert. Politically speaking, the deserts are beginning to alter, but the important thing is that we should be very upset and worried if we had to give up a very efficient police force and transfer, at the behest of the Home Office, to a standing joint committee who are not so democratically controlled and whose functions are run by a nominated body, partly elected by county quarter sessions and partly by county councils. I am convinced that if the Home Secretary will give us the assurance we need, he can have a speedy passage of the general provisions of his Bill.
The important thing to me is that although a case may be made out for joining authorities who have common interests, a case cannot be made out for the amalgamation of a long established county borough whose interests are entirely different from the police authorities surrounding it. That sort of thing does not make for efficiency, because both the county authorities and the county borough authorities have to use the services of the special departments, such as the forensic laboratory at Nottingham, and so on, in pursuance of their ordinary work. But we are placed in the dilemma of having to vote against the Government on this because, although many of our constituencies are controlled by people of the same complexion as those on this side of the House, they feel that if they give way on this issue they will put themselves under the control of very reactionary rural and county authorities. I hope that the Home Secretary will have special regard to this plea. Even though he cannot accept the figure of 60,000, he ought to give us an assurance that county boroughs will not lose their status. The fact that in the Boundary Commission's recommendation no authority of over 60,000 is to lose its county borough status ought to be sufficient for him to

give consideration to the plea put forward by both sides of the House to see that the very efficient police organisations of county boroughs are maintained.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Unlike some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, my constituency is not in the least interested in this matter and, therefore, perhaps, I may put another point of view. I very well remember the discussions in this House when the recommendation of the Boundary Commission was under review. I would ask the Home Secretary to consider taking no action in regard to this Bill which might prejudice the position of county boroughs which are at present immune from the consideration of the Commission. I recognise the importance of police mobility and such things, and that one does not want to multiply police forces unnecessarily. The county boroughs which were particularly excluded, which were, in other words, made safe by this House, should not now be placed in jeopardy. It would be very difficult for those who appeared before the Boundary Commission and gave evidence if we now prejudiced the situation by any action contrary to what this House then decided. It is wrong for Parliament to override a decision which was reached after a great deal of discussion, when the figure 60,000 was arrived at.

Mr. Younger: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer). I represent another borough in the county of Lincoln. I would ask the Home Secretary to explain exactly why he alighted upon the figure of 100,000. I agree that it is difficult to hit upon any particular figure, but I should have thought that the 60,000 of the Boundary Commission had distinct relevance. If that figure is not to be maintained we should be told why by the Home Secretary. If my right hon. Friend should think it impossible to insert 60,000 into the Bill I would ask him to let it be placed on record, and that he should give us some assurance, that in considering county boroughs with a population of less than 100,000 he will take into account special circumstances relating to those boroughs. My constituency is a seaport and fishing port. Its police problems would be unfamiliar to any police personnel who might come in from outside. If the Home Secretary would give us the assurance


that conditions of that kind will be taken fully into account he would allay the very real fears that exist in many county boroughs. No doubt those circumstances would be taken into account in a local inquiry, but it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could make a statement on the subject

Mr. Maude: I would like to present one farther argument in favour of the alteration of this figure. Can Lincoln speak, and Exeter remain silent? Lincoln is a parvenu compared with the great cities of Exeter and Carlisle. Nevertheless, I look across to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) with great affection and admiration for what he has said on behalf of the other cities besides his own. I am prepared to admit that 100,000 is a good round figure and that it is probably helpful to have something in hand in this matter. It is not unhelpful for some of these boroughs, even if they are very ancient, to have something in hand so as to keep up to the mark. I do not think it would be unfair to say that simply to sing"Auld Lang Syne" and get away with it, is completely out of date. One must face facts and recognise that we may have to have changes. Nevertheless, Exeter is not an oasis in the middle of the desert. We are rather a desert in the middle of an oasis and are having a miserable time trying to rehouse ourselves. I am making no capital out of that fact and am not trying to blame anybody. We are having a very thin time. I do not want to see', at the end of this Debate when the Bill passes on, my city in a position to say, "Good gracious, now we may be faced with forced amalgamation of our police force."
Our citizens feel very strongly, because they have done well with their city. They have a first-rate police force. They do not base their arguments only on that ground. They say: "We are coming somewhere near the border line and we do not believe that the Home Secretary intends to amalgamate us. On the other hand, we appreciate that it is very difficult for him. At some later stage it might become expedient." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give all of us some assurance that the attitude of mind of himself may be represented in this way: "I have plenty of material here for the experiment "—it is largely

an experiment—" and there is no reason to feel apprehensive. If, in fact, it should be a very successful experiment it might nevertheless still be true that there is no reason for apprehension on the part of these county boroughs who are on the border line. Indeed, they may remain quite calm and they may be satisfied that at the present moment there is nothing at all to worry about."
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to go as far as that. It is rather farther than he has been urged heretofore. He has been asked to take into consideration special circumstances, but this is something rather more than that. We do not want to be bothered with something extra put on the local authorities and upon the minds of the citizens in the shape of extra worry and annoyance which will only cause local strife. I therefore support the plea which has been put forward humbly, with great reasonableness and with great good temper.

Mr. Paget: I represent the ancient and famous borough of Northampton and I rise to say that it is worried. The trouble is that at the last estimate by the Registrar-General, our evacuees had left us and our Service people had not came pack and that, although our average population is over 100,000, our particular population, as referred to and defined in the Clause, was shown to be just under 100,000. My watch committee are very proud, justifiably, of a well-organised police force, which has served the borough well for a large number of years. It has very different problems from those of the rural police force of the county. The watch committee are worried that the fate of the police force should even be threatened. They were anxious that I should put down an Amendment to the Clause, after Registrar-General" to add:
 at any time within a period of five years preceding the appointed day.
I did not think it necessary to do so, because I feel confident that the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that, in the application of this admittedly arbitrary figure of 100,000, our average population will be taken into consideration and that advantage will not be taken of a temporary decrease in population which will be altered at a subsequent date. I earnestly ask the Home Secretary


to give Northampton that assurance and to say, without any necessity for my going in for an Amendment, that the average population will be taken into consideration and that the decrease will not be a ground for partial amalgamation.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am sorry to introduce a different" note into these very harmonious proceedings but I propose to ask the House to reject the Amendment. I believe that, in the interests of good government, it is important that police forces should be larger than some of them have been in the past I realise that many hon. Members feel strongly on this matter and I sympathise with them. Local patriotism is very important and we should encourage it, but I want to assure them that their fears are not justified and that if these proposals go through, they will lose nothing at all. I represent one half of a county borough of 211,400 people, and we have no police force at all under our jurisdiction. Therefore, if a county borough of that size can be run happily and without any trouble, why should there be qualms about county boroughs of a much smaller size? The police in our county borough come under the Metropolitan Police Force. There is no chief constable, but there is a superintendent. I regret to say I cannot tell the House the strength of the police force. I have inquired from the local police, from Scotland Yard and from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but none of them can, or will, tell me the strength. I cannot imagine that they do not know and, therefore, I must assume that the barbarous wartime practice of maintaining secrecy is being continued into the days of peace. However, I think it can be assumed that it consists of a superintendent, a few inspectors, some sergeants and a number of men, and they function very satisfactorily indeed. When we have civic functions, the superintendent takes the place of the chief constable in other forces.
If these small boroughs lose their forces, what difference will it make? It will not make a scrap of difference to them. Not a single undergraduate more will go to Oxford if there happens to be a local force there, and not a single undergraduate less will go there if there is not a local force in control. Is anyone going to tell me that people are going to Eastbourne, because there is a local police

force there, or that people are not going to Eastbourne because there is not a local police force there?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: We have been amalgamated during the war for wartime purposes. We have had experience of amalgamation and we have had experience of having our own police force; we prefer to have our own police force.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think it is a dangerous argument, because it seems to me that the duty of a police officer is to carry out the law. What is the point in objecting to an amalgamated force? Is it thought that if these amalgamated police forces have full control, the police will carry out the law? Is that the fear? For these reasons I ask this House to consider this matter very seriously, because it is an important matter of administration. Having had some experience of association with the police, I know the big forces feel strongly in this matter when they see chief constables of little forces, with not nearly as many men in them as an ordinary inspector in the Metropolitan Police has under him.

745 P.m

Mr. Mikardo: Like the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), my constituency has no direct interest in this matter, although the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) did list it among those boroughs with a population of less than 100,000. In fact, it has a population of much more than 100,000, but, at least, the hon. Gentleman's error was unwitting and drew attention to an important point. The hon. Gentleman's error was unwitting, because this is a borough whose population has changed markedly and in a short time, and this is only one example of a number of causes of population change. We have heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) of seasonal population changes, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) of weekend population changes, no doubt due to the amenities of his city partly as a result of an experiment in nationalisation which attracts people from North of the city. We have heard also from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) of anomalies in populations which are very close to a given figure, and we have heard from my


hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) of a population which fluctuates just above and just below a given figure.
The arguments for this Amendment have tended to support not a figure of 60,000 as against 100,000, but the contention that any arbitrary figure must be wrong and must create anomalies. If this is so, and since the function of the House at this moment is to decide only between two figures, then let us choose the figure which will create fewer anomalies. The lower one goes down the population scale, the more boroughs are affected, and, therefore, the greater is the number of potential anomalies arising out of the enforcement of an arbitrary boundary. On those purely technical grounds alone, I would say that a figure of 60,000 is not as good as a figure of 100,000 and, for that matter, a figure of 100,000 is not as good as a figure of 200,000. For that reason, I beg the Home Secretary to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I will endeavour to restore to the proceedings the harmony which was so rudely disturbed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I accept all the testimonials that have been given to their constituents by the hon. Members who have reason to feel grateful to their constituents. I would point out that some of the arguments that have been adduced can hardly be regarded seriously. I am told to have regard to the fact that at weekends Carlisle has a population of 100,000. I live in the borough of Epsom, and on the first Wednesday in June we shall have a population rather larger than that of Birmingham. I make no claims in respect of that. I have been asked to give attention to the claims of cathedral cities, but I thought the days for taking restrictive action against turbulent priests had long since passed.
Let us examine exactly what is proposed to be done. The argument has proceeded on the basis that some Secretary of State will descend on a county borough of between 60,000 and 100,000 in population, will promote a compulsory amalgamation scheme, and forthwith the borough will be amalgamated. That is not by any means the situation. Let us assume that a compulsory amalgamation

scheme is, in fact, promoted. If the authorities to be amalgamated agree, the scheme can then go through, but if one of them disagrees an inquiry has to be held. I have gone further than any Minister has previously gone in my endeavour -to ensure that the inquiry shall be held by a person of as complete impartiality as it is possible to obtain. I did agree on the Second Reading that it should not be an inspector of police or an officer of any Government Department. In the Committee stage of the Bill I suggested that this person should be taken from a panel, to be drawn up in consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, so that the person holding the inquiry would be one whose efficiency and knowledge would already have been approved by the local authority associations most concerned.
I think that was a concession which ought to be made in view of the anxiety which is felt by many hon. Members of the House that this Bill might be used to promote a national police force, or possibly large forces outside the Metropolitan police area of the same size as the Metropolitan Police Force I have no such desire myself. I have as great a dread of the "police State" as any hon. Member in the House, and perhaps with more reason than some That is not the end of it. The report of this inspector has to be presented to the House, so that the Secretary of State cannot smother the findings of the inspector if they are unfavourable to his views The House of Commons will then have in front of it, before the scheme comes into operation, the findings of an inspector who has been selected from the panel which I have described. I think that that indicates it will not merely be the desire of some Secretary of State that will determine whether these amalgamations take place or not.
I am bound to say that I am almost overwhelmed by the compliments that have been paid me with regard to my own good sense in the matter. I recognise that lion. Members opposite really dread what may happen when in the distant future they have to provide a Secretary of State to carry out the powers that I am going to confer upon him by this Bill. However, it is not, as might have been thought from a good many of the speeches, the mere -whim of a Secretary of State


which is to determine this matter. It will be only after an inquiry, more protected from Government prejudice than any similar inquiry that has ever been held under a Statute of the House, that any amalgamation can possibly take place. I hesitate to call this a wrecking Amendment, because the hon. Gentleman and I got on so well upstairs that it would be almost imputing a motive to suggest that this was designed to wreck the Bill. However, I would point out to him—and it is a thing that has been forgotten in the course of this Debate—that I have included already in the Bill, on the motion of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, an Amendment to the part of the Bill we are now discussing, which brings the counties as well as the county boroughs into the 100,000 limit. If I were to accept this Amendment of 60,000 it would apply to counties as well as to county boroughs. It is safe to say that the effect of this Amendment would be that no amalgamation scheme worth while could be carried through in the country at all, because it limits it with regard to both counties and county boroughs.
I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and others to give an assurance that the special circumstances of a borough would be taken into account. Let me assure him, and also the representatives of the counties, that before promoting a compulsory scheme, the first step will be, if a voluntary scheme is not brought forward by adjoining authorities, that a conference will be held with the authorities whom the Secretary of State may desire to amalgamate, to put before them the reasons why in his opinion it is desirable that in that particular area a joint police force should be set up. If they consent, again all will be well. If not, there will still be all the processes which I have indicated to be gone through. One must assume that in all these matters the special circumstances of areas will be borne in mind before any consideration is given to whether an amalgamation scheme ought to be promoted or not. For instance I cannot think that the people of Northampton are really as worried as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) represented. Fancy the constituents of Bradlaugh and Labouchere being worried about a matter of this kind, especially

when they are represented by my hon. Friend. After all, it is an ascending order of merit which I have mentioned. A very good case to take here is, I think, a county borough which has at the moment approximately 100,000 people. I do want to point out that I have endeavoured to ensure that the utmost reason shall be observed in the matter. It is the last Registrar-General's estimate which is to be taken. That is to say, the moment the Registrar-General estimates that a borough has over 100,000 people it will become exempt from compulsory amalgamation.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred to the question of the considerations given to the Boundary Commission. Do let us be quite clear what they are. They are, that no authority which has now the status of a county borough council should be reduced below that status to non-county borough status if its population is over 60,000. Many county boroughs are in all sorts of joint schemes, not merely for police but for other purposes. It does not by any means prove that an authority is not capable of exercising county borough council powers merely because, for one reason or another, it has agreed to take part in a joint scheme with neighbouring authorities. There is a very wide range of public services over which joint committees operate, and to which the various county boroughs, county and other councils appoint their representatives without anyone suggesting that the appointing council is incapable of discharging its proper functions.

Sir R. Glyn: If the right hon. Gentleman would forgive me for interrupting, may I say the point is the question of a compulsory scheme? I quite agree there is nothing to stop them getting together on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will find that is so always. There are plenty of provisional order schemes that have been promoted to cover these cases. Already eight county boroughs have voluntarily amalgamated themselves with the counties in which they are situated, and I should hesitate to think that Bournemouth, which is one of them, is not as efficiently policed as either Eastbourne or Hastings.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing Bournemouth with Eastbourne, is he?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am. I have been to both places, and for more than a weekend, and I doubt very much whether any one going into either place could tell that the one was policed by an amalgamated constabulary while the other used to be policed by its own independent constabulary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer), and one or two other hon. Members, used the argument that this would place the county under what was described as "a reactionary police authority." It was because of that anomaly that the Bill was drafted as it is. At the moment, the only way in which an amalgamation can take place is by the absorption of a borough force in a county force. The eight county boroughs to which I have alluded have all had to agree that their borough force shall be absorbed into the county police force. I desire to avoid that situation, and that is why I have drafted the Bill in the way I have. In the case of an amalgamation, whether voluntary or compulsory, the effect of the wording of the Bill will be that in future the two or more police authorities to be amalgamated will retain the right of appointing their own representatives to the police authority. It will not be an absorption of a borough into a county, if the arrangement is that a county borough and county are to be amalgamated; there will be so many representatives for the county borough and so many for the county, and, as I explained on an earlier Amendment, I am very anxious to leave the arrangement so wide that the best possible people from each of the constituent authorities can be selected to sit on the joint police authority.

Colonel Wheatley: Does that mean to say that only a portion of the standing joint committee will be the police authority?

Mr. Ede: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was present earlier in the evening when I dealt with the question of the way the representatives might be selected. Let us suppose that an amalgamation is proposed involving a county borough and a county.

have promised this evening that the representatives of the county borough shall be selected from members of the county borough council. The representatives of the county police authority will be drawn from the members of the county council and from the justices sitting in Quarter Sessions, so that the representatives of the county borough will all be county borough councillors and the representatives of the county will be drawn from those people who, at the moment, are responsible for appointing the members of the standing joint committee.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Are we to understand that the future standing joint committee will not be composed of, say, one half elected representatives of the people and the other half nominated persons? If I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, the representatives of the county borough which is amalgamated or absorbed into the county will be elected representative of that borough council. If the elected representatives of the borough council sit side by side with the standing joint committee, am I correct in inferring that there will be a majority of elected representatives on the standing joint committee?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think the hon. Member has quite realised exactly what I have said. It would all depend upon the respective size of the county borough and the county. I think, in most cases, the effect would be that on the new joint police authority a majority of the members would be either county borough councillors or aldermen, or county councillors or aldermen, with, in most cases, a number of county justices equal to the number of county councillors and aldermen, selected in reference to each of the counties concerned. If the amalgamation is between a county borough and a county of approximately equal size, that would mean that two-thirds of the representation would be from local authorities and one-third from the county justices. It would in every case depend upon the proportionate representation assigned to the county borough and county concerned, and that in the main would be arranged roughly in proportion to the populations involved.
I have given very careful consideration to this figure of 100,000, and I have selected it because it is the figure at which,


it has been decided by this House, a new county borough shall be constituted. Existing non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of under 100,000 cannot be made into new county boroughs, and it is therefore quite clear that this House, which has steadily raised this figure since 1888, when it started at 50,000, has decided that 100,000 is the figure at which an area can expect to get and retain county borough status. The House has also stated that only under exceptional circumstances should county boroughs with a population of less than 60,000 be allowed to retain that status. The effect of this Amendment, therefore, would be, when the boundary commissioners have completed their report, that it would be impossible to amalgamate any county borough, no matter how strong the case and no matter what the report of an inspector if he was allowed to go and hold an inquiry. In this matter it is essential that we should have regard first to the .public service. It is the efficiency of the public service which alone is a justification for government, either national or local. As one who has given 40 years to local government, I want to say in all sincerity that one of the things that sometimes makes it very difficult to justify the continuance of certain local government powers is the way in which the very often legitimate pride of a local authority causes it to stand in the way of efficient amalgamation and efficient co-operative and joint use of powers with surrounding authorities.
The House may rest assured of this, that these powers will not be put into motion except after the most careful scrutiny and consideration. If any Secretary of State, having given that careful scrutiny and consideration, should propose a scheme for any local authority whose population is less than 100,000, and that local authority does not like it, his proposal will have to stand the scrutiny of the investigation that I have described. I venture to say that that is an ample safeguard to ensure that the particular requirements of seaport towns, or cathedral cities, and other places with peculiar problems, will be legitimately considered before any decision is taken in the matter.

Mr. Peake: I have a great admiration for the Parliamentary gifts of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I

nearly always find his arguments persuasive, and sometimes I have very nearly found them convincing. But I have never heard him less persuasive or less convincing than he has been this evening in answering this Amendment. He stresses the safeguards in the Clause. There is to be a local inquiry; the inspector has to make a report; there is provision for a negative Resolution of the House of Commons. That is true. But if there are all these safeguards in the Clause why has the right hon. Gentleman introduced the limitation of a population of 100,000 into the Bill? Let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cast their minds back to the origin of this Amendment. The House discussed the Second Reading of this Bill on 1st November last. This question of police amalgamations is an issue which cuts across party lines. There was a general desire in the Debate on the Second Reading, therefore, upon a subject possibly embarrassing to hon. Members, that we should, if possible, avoid a Division.
At that time the Clause we are now discussing contained no ceiling whatsoever to the size or scale or the numbers of the amalgamations which might be carried through on the instigation of the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary wound up the Debate with his usual charming and bluff good humour, but he did not answer the one important question which was put to him for an answer. It was, Would he introduce some limitation into the Bill to the scale of the amalgamations which might be undertaken? At the end of the Debate I rose in my seat and asked whether he would be kind enough to answer the question I put to the Government, whether they would set some limit to the objectives they had regarding the size of amalgamations. The hon. Gentleman replied that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the local authorities. I thought that was treating the House of Commons rather badly. We were not to be told whether the Government would or would not introduce any limiting Amendment. We were told it was a matter which would be discussed with the local authorities. During the Committee stage, presumably after discussing this matter with the local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman inserted in the Bill a ceiling to these powers of amalgamation.
He has chosen a yardstick of the population of the area and given protection to those police areas where the population exceeds 100,000. For my part I should have much preferred the yardstick embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) which is also, I understand, being discussed along with the Amendment now before the Committee. That yardstick is the numerical size of the police force concerned. After all, if one was seeking for the efficiency of the police by means of amalgamation, I should have thought that the number of police officers in the force was a better yardstick to choose for putting a limit to units than the population of the area which that police force has to look after. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary turned down the yardstick of the numerical strength of the force in the Committee stage, and brought forward this proposal for a limit of 100,000 with reference to the population of the area. The effect of his proposal is to give absolute protection against amalgamation against their wishes to a substantial number of county boroughs and county police forces. It protects 38 out of 73 county borough forces and it protects all but 15 out of a total of 58- county forces. The question before the House at this moment, is therefore, Is that degree of protection sufficient?
8.15 p.m.
Our Amendment is to set the population limit at 60,000 in place of 100,000 proposed by the Home Secretary. Incidentally, our proposal would result in giving protection to a very large number of those police forces where the strength is over 100 constables, which are not protected in the proposal made by the Home Secretary. Our Amendment would, as my hon. Friend, in moving it, told the House, protect an additional 25 county boroughs. My hon. Friend gave the list, and I do not think I need give it again since most of the representatives of those county boroughs are in the Chamber at the moment. Further it would protect five more of the counties, making all the county forces safe from amalgamation except 10.
I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that this Amendment would wreck the Bill. After all, this Bill contains a good many other Clauses

besides Clause 4. Clause 1, as we know, abolishes non-county borough police forces altogether. That will be left to the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 3, which widens the scope for voluntary amalgamation, will still be left to him, and there will still be a considerable field for amalgamation put forward by the Home Secretary under Clause 4 of the Bill. Since the declared object of the right hon. Gentleman is to build efficient units broadly on the structure of the county boroughs and of the counties I really cannot see why he should not accept this Amendment. After all, it was the ineptitude or inexperience of -the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary which forced us into the Division lobby on the Second Reading. A Division could easily have been avoided, had he said that the Government proposed, during the Committee stage, to set some ceiling to the size of the amalgamated force. The right hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid, going to force us into the same position again tonight. I could have hoped that he would put up his Under-Secretary this evening to make good the error into which he fell during the Second Reading Debate, to say that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment giving protection to the additional 25 county boroughs and five counties.
What is the argument in favour of compulsory amalgamation over a wide area? The whole object of this Bill is to promote efficiency in the police force, but, in promoting efficiency, you must have regard to local pride and local traditions. In most of these 25 county boroughs, whose police forces may be abolished if our Amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, it could be said that they are places with a long history and tradition; one could go further and say that nearly all of them have had police forces for more than 100 years—I think all of them have had police forces for more than 80 years. They are all substantial places, and many of them have more than 100 constables in their forces. I am of the opinion, and I do not speak without some little experience at the Home Office, that a force of 100 constables could be a highly efficient force If the right hon. Gentleman will permit some forces of the size of 80 or 100 constables to remain in being, he would not in any way be prejudicing the efficiency of the police. The argument was produced during the Committee stage,


that police areas must be increased because of the mobility of the modern criminal. The idea seemed to be that the police constable, chasing a thief on a motor bicycle or in a motor car, stopped at the borough boundary and waved him good-bye. That, of course, does not happen, because there is admirable liaison between the different boroughs and county police forces; they are heavily interlocked in districts such as the West Riding of Yorkshire, or the County of Lancashire.
Then, there is the argument that you must have bigger units because all sorts of means and methods are at the disposal of the criminals today which he could not have employed before. I venture to say that that also is a completely fallacious argument. Never in the course of our history has a burglar been at such a disadvantage compared with the police than at the present time. In the days of Dick Turpin the criminal had a horse and the policeman had a horse; in the days of Charles Peace, I do not know what they had, but they certainly had no motor-cars or motor-cycles. Not only have the police all the equipment at their disposal which the criminal has, but they are a long way ahead of the criminal. There has been much complaint for a long time past from the burgling fraternity that methods like finger prints, blood tests and radio are most unfair and quite out of keeping with the principles of the game as it used to be played. The argument that because we have the telephone, the telegraph and the radio the burglar is at a greater advantage than he was in the past, is completely fallacious. It is possible to have a highly efficient police force of 70, 80, 90 or 100 constables, all of which are sufficiently large to give a good man a chance to come forward and obtain promotion.
The right hon. Gentleman used two other arguments about which I think I ought to say a word. He said, if our Amendment were accepted, that no scheme of amalgamation which was worth while could be made. Really that, I think, is a considerable over-statement. This narrows the field of compulsory amalgamation to a certain extent, but it does not shut it completely. It still leaves a field in which compulsory amalgamation can operate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that he had chosen 100,000 because it had been laid down

for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners, that they should enforce the county borough status in future upon any area which did not have a population of that size. This is a case of abolishing a police force, and that rule does not apply. The rule laid down for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners is that they must not recommend the deprivation of county borough status for any area which has a population of more than 60,000. Surely that is exactly comparable with the case which we are putting forward; that is to say no area shall have its police force taken away against its will if the area has more than 60,000. For myself, I would have preferred a yardstick based on the number of constables in the force. The right hon. Gentleman has refused that, and he has taken the yardstick of population, setting his figure at 100,000. If we are to have a yardstick based on population, then 60,000 is a better number to choose than 100,000 It will preserve a number of admirable police forces, and will not wreck the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has presented.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Unlike a number of my hon. Friends. I did not have the pleasure and enjoyment of taking part in the discussions on this matter in Committee. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is leaving the House. [Interruption.] I am not asking him to come back.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair:

Mr. Davies: I must avail myself of this opportunity to say how profoundly and absolutely I disagree with my right hon. Friend and with the case which he has attempted to make out this evening. If my right hon. Friend continues to resist this Amendment it will considerably affect Wales. There are seven counties there whose population is under 100,000. These seven counties are adjoining, and each one varies extensively in size and population. Each one can be deprived, if this Amendment is not accepted, of any control which they have as counties over their present police forces. I know that my right hon. Friend has a considerable sense of humour, and I think it must be that sense of humour which prompted him this afternoon to describe this Amendment as being almost a wrecking


Amendment. That is rather amusing having regard to what has already happened in the House today. Already he has deprived every borough in this country, notwithstanding any pride which it may have in its own police force, of any control over that force, and now he is afraid of another wrecking being perpetrated as the result of this Amendment, when he has already wrecked as many county boroughs as he can.
8.30 p.m.
There are 34 county boroughs whose control over their police forces is threatened if this Amendment is not accepted. If it is accepted, that number will be reduced to nine. This Bill, from beginning to end, is a wrecking Bill. My right hon. Friend knows that only too well, and the only excuse he has given us in resisting this and other Amendments is that he stands for the efficiency of the police forces. Not once during the long discussion on this Amendment has he given, if he could give, any idea as to what he understands by the word "efficiency." I am driven to the conclusion that the reason why he resists this Amendment is because he confuses efficiency with size on the assumption that the more numerous and more congested a population, the more efficient is its police force.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude on this matter. His stonewalling of these major Amendments —this is one of them—will, to put it mildly, not endear him to hon. Members in this House. My right hon. Friend took a great deal of time to tell us, "I have done more in this Bill than has any other Home Secretary to protect the police authorities in this country." That, I would say, is a piece of effrontery. What he should have told us is this: "I am doing more than any other Home Secretary in the history of the police forces of this country to wreck those police forces." [Interruption.] I am not getting in a bad temper because my own police force is being threatened. But I am entitled to ask the Home Secretary why he should threaten that police force and threaten to merge it and lose it in a county police force.

Mr. Ede: What I am doing is to protect the Merthyr Tydfil force from suffering on the assumption—and it must not be taken

that the assumption is a sound one—that if Merthyr Tydfil were amalgamated with either of the counties which it adjoins, the police force would not be amalgamated with and absorbed into the county police force but would become part of a joint police authority on which the Merthyr Tydfil Council would have the right of appointing representatives. If it would help the hon. Member, I will promise him that, in the unlikely event of such an amalgamation taking place, I will see that a seat on the new police authority is reserved for the mayor of the borough.

Mr. Davies: I shall be very happy to convey to the Mayor of Merthyr Tydfil the kindly concern which my right hon. Friend has shown for him. I do not think that any of us is impressed by the promise made by my right hon. Friend that it will not be a merger but an amalgamation. The sprat will be amalgamated with the shark. A county borough of 70,000 population cannot be amalgamated with a county with a population approaching 1,000,000. Only one thing can happen—it will be swallowed by it, and the county borough knows it only too well: I am sorry my right hon. Friend has been so obdurate. I dislike the Bill intensely and I hope to have something more to say on that later. I am surprised and disappointed that he is resisting without reason, without argument and without case the Amendments which have been submitted, most of which have been inspired not that this borough or that county borough may retain its police force, but because of the profound fear that exists that this is but the first step towards the destruction of local government in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I have no constituency matter to raise in relation to this Bill or this Amendment but I hope very much that when the Home Secretary replies, which I imagine he will do—

Mr. Ede: I have already replied.

Mr. Brown: In that case I hope that a supplementary reply will be forthcoming on this question of identifying size with efficiency. There is no more vulgar modern heresy than that which confuses size with virtue. It is a very pronounced heresy and a very widespread one, and it may be that it is invading the terms of this Bill. It is not true to say that a


big country is necessarily better than a little one. I think that the world owes much more to Greece than to America. It is not true to say that a big union is better than a small one or a big shop is better than a little one. I call Heaven to witness that no man conducts his courtship on the basis that the bigger the woman the better. I do not say that efficiency and virtue reside in size. I am open to conviction. If the Home Secretary or the Undersecretary can convince me that a unit of 100,000 is better than 60,000 then I am willing to be convinced, but I am not at all impressed that we ought to pass it, because to my commonsense and practical mind it appears to be probable that there is some relation between the number of '' coppers '' and the size of the population. It is not a mathematical relation. Speaking for myself, I may say that I find the degree of attention which I get from the police is pretty uniform no matter which part of the country I go to. On this point of whether 100,000 or 60,000 makes the better force I am open to conviction, but I would say that there is truth in the poet's remark:

" The Lord speaks in the voice of little things."

If I may also quote from a great fellow-countryman of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. 0. Davies):
 The world owes much to little nations and to little men.

As I have said, I am open to conviction on the argument that the larger unit makes for efficiency. That is the point of the Amendment. I think the House does require to be convinced that a force of 100,000 makes for greater efficiency than one of 60,000, and that we are not crushing local associations of long standing and merging little police forces in wider bodies on the plea of higher efficiency. I do not know whether any Government spokesman is going to speak. [Hon. Members: "Vote."] Hon. Members want to vote? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Then Heaven forbid that I should stand in the way.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 112.

Division No. 100.]
AYES.
[8.43 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Collick, P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Collins, V. J
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Attewell, H. G.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Guy, W. H.


Austin, H. L.
Cove, W. G.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Ayles, W. H.
Daggar, G.
Hale, Leslie


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Daines, P.
Hall, W G. (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Baird, Capt. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Balfour, A. 
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Barstow, P. G.
Diamond, J.
Haworth, J.


Barton, C.
Dobbin, W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Battley, J. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hewitson. Capt. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hicks, G.


Belcher, J. W.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hobson, C. R.


Bellenger, F. J
Dye, S.
House; G.


Benson, G
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hoy, J.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hubbard, T. 


Binns, J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Lt. H D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Fairhurst, F.
Irving, W. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Follick, M.
Janner, B.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)


Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
John, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)
Jones, A C. (Shipley)


Buchanan, G.
Gallacher, W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Burden, T. W
Gibbins, J 
Keenan, W.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, C. W 
Kenyon, C. 


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gilzean, A.
King, E. M 


Champion, A. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kinley, J 


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Gooch, E. G.
Kirby, B. V 


Clitherow, Dr. R
Goodrich, H. E.
Kirkwood, D. 


Cluse, W. S.
Granville, E (Eye)
Lavers, S. 


Cocks, F. S
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J 


Coldrick, W. 
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Lee, F. (Hulme) 




Leslie, J. R.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Levy, B. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.


Logan, D. G
Parker, J.
Thorneycroft, H.


Longden, F.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T
Tiffany, S.


McAdam, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Titterington, M. F.


McAllister, G.
Pearson, A.
Tolley, L.


McEntee, V. La T.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G


McGhee, H. G.
Perrins, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Mack, J. D.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Usborne, Henry


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Popplewell, E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Viant, S. P.


McKinlay, A. S.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wadsworth, G.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Proctor, W. T.
Walkden, E.


McLeavy, F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Walker, G. H.


MacMillan, M. K.
Rankin, J
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E


Mallalieu, J. P. W
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watson, W. M


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Rideaigh, Mrs. M
Weitzman, D.


Mathers, G.
Robens, A.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Mayhew, C. P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Messer, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sargood, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Wilkes, Maj. L


Monslow, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wilkins, W. A.


Montague, F.
Shurmer, P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Moody, A. S
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morley, R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williamson, T.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, E.


Moyle, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Murray, J. D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wise, Major F. J.


Nally, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Woodburn, A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Solley, L. J.
Woods, G. S


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, Maj. W.



Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stamford, W
Yates, V. F.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Steele, T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


O'Brien, T.
Stross, Dr. B.
Zilliacus, K.


Oldneld, W. H.
Stubbs, A. E.



Oliver, G H.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orbach, M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Captain Michael Stewart and Captain Bing.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Molson, A H. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fraser, Maj. H. C P. (Stone)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gammans, Capt. L. D
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. M.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Nutting, Anthony


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Barlow, Sir J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Gridley, Sir A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig C. H. M.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Cuthbert, W N.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maude, J. C.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Turton, R. H.




Walker-Smith, D.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
York, C.


Ward, Hon. G. R.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Wall, Sir G. S. Harvie
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Sir A. Young and Mr. Drewe.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after "upwards," to insert:
 or where a county borough has an authorised establishment of more than one hundred.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 261.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[8.55 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Anderson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Scot. Univ.)
Glossop, C. W H
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Glyn, Sir R.
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barlow, Sir J
Gridley, Sir A.
Prior-Palmer. Brig O


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Jarvis, Sir J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, Lieut. W S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Carson, E.
Kingsmill, Lf.-Col. W. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.



Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Studholme, H. G


Crookshank Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N
Marples, A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maude, J. C.
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Lt.-Col [...] V. G. (Penrith)
Medlicott, Brig F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, Capt. G. B
Mellor, Sir J
Ward, Hon. G. R


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Molson, A. H. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Duthie, W. S.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Nield, B. (Chester)
White, J. B. (Carterbury)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Nutting, Anthony
York, C.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gammans, Capt. L D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sir A. Young and Mr. Drewe.




NOES


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Diamond, J


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, George (Belper)
Dobbie, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Brown, T.J. (Ince)
Douglas, F. C. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Driberg, T. E. N


Attewell, H. C
Buchanan, G.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Austin, H. L.
Burden, T. W.
Dye, S.


Ayles, W. H.
Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Bacon, Miss A
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Baird, Capt. J.
Chetwynd Capt G R
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)



Balfour, A.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Cluse, W S
Ewart, R.


Barstow. P. G.
Cocks, F S.
Fairhurst, F.


Barton, C.
Coldrick, W.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E) 


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Collick, P.
Follick, M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collins, V. J.
Foot, M. M.


Belcher, J. W.
Colman, Miss G M.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Bellenger, F. J
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Benson, G
Corlett, Dr. J.
Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)


Binns, J
Corvedale Viscount
Gallacher, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Cove, W. G
Gibbins, J. 


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W 


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gooch, E. G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Goodrich, H. E.




Granville, E. (Eye)
McLeavy, F.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
MacMillan, M. K.
Simmons, C. J.


Grey, C. F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Skinnard, F. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mathers, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Mayhew, C. P
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Guy, W. H.
Messer, F.
Solley, L J.


Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Stamford, W.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Steele, T.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Montague, F.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Haworth, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morley, R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Hicks, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thorneycroft H.


Hobson, C. R
Moyle, A.
Tiffany, S.


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.
Titterington, M. F.


House, G.
Nally, W
Tolley, L.


Hoy, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hubbard. T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Usborne, Henry


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
O'Brien, T.
Viant, S P.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wadsworth, G.


Irving, W. J.
Oliver, G. H.
Walkden, E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Walker, G. H.


Janner, B.
Paget, R T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Warbey, W. N.


Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Watkins, T. E.


John, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Watson, W. M.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Keenan, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
White, C F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Kenyon, C.
Pearson, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


King, E. M.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kinley, J.
Perrins, W.
Wigg, Col. G E.


Kirby, B. V.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Lavers, S.
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Leslie, J. R.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Levy, B. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rankin, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Williamson, T.


Logan, D. G.
Reeves, J.
Willis, E.


Longden, F.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Lyne, A. W.
Rideaigh, Mrs. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


McAdam, W.
Robens, A.
Woodburn, A.


 McAllister, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woods, G. S.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


McGhee, H. G.
Sargood, R.
Yates, V. F.


Mack, J. D.
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McKinlay, A. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Captain Michael Stewart and


Maclean. N. (Govan)
Shurmer, P.
Captain Bing.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert "county or."
This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments consequential on an earlier one to which I have specifically referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments' made:

In page 4, line 30, after the second "the," insert "county or."

In line 32, after "the," insert "county or."—[Mr. Oliver..]

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:

 Provided that a person appointed under this Subsection to hold a local inquiry shall be selected from a panel of persons prepared by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association.
This Amendment arises from a discussion which we had on the Committee stage, to which the Home Secretary has already referred. The point was raised that where these compulsory amalgamations are initiated by him, there should be a person appointed to hold the inquiry who should be acceptable to the local authorities concerned. After some discussion, the Home Secretary accepted a suggestion, which I think came from an hon.


Gentleman opposite that a panel should be set up from which he could draw. We thank him for that concession.
We believe it will be a very good thing to have this panel set up and agreed ' with the Association of Municipal Corporations beforehand, so that in the event of an inquiry having to be held, he can select a person from the panel to hold the inquiry. We would rather like to see this put in the Bill. I would remind the Home Secretary that in the course of the Committee stage he said:
 I prefer to leave it in the form of the pledge I have given to the Committee. If hon. Members feel they would like to see it embodied in the Bill, they can put down an Amendment on Report Stage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B., 5th February, 1946, col. 120.]
That is what we have done on the invitation of the Home Secretary and, without more ado, I would invite him to see if he cannot accept it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I am really grieved about this. We have had a very pleasant evening. The only person who I gather has any ill-feeling towards me is the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies). I made this concession in Committee. I stand by what I said with regard to using this machinery, but I would suggest that it is hardly appropriate to put it in the Bill because, after all, both the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations are voluntary associations which may disappear or be altered in name, and then the words of the Statute might become meaningless and even embarrassing in certain circumstances. I have no hesitation whatever in repeating on the Floor of the House the pledge which I gave in Committee that this will be the machinery which will be adopted. As soon as the Bill becomes law, I will take steps to set up the panel, and I hope that that assurance will be sufficient for hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for the assurance he has given, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.— (Consolidation agreements under County Police Act, 1840, etc)

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, at the end, to insert:
 and references in those provisions to the police functions of the borough and to the exercise of such functions by the council or watch committee of the borough shall be construed accordingly.
This Amendment is designed to make it perfectly clear that non-county boroughs which are policed by agreement with the county are to be put in exactly the same position as other non-county boroughs for the purposes of Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 19, leave out from beginning to "be," and insert "may."

In page 14, line 37, leave out "a rank," and insert "any capacity."— [Mr. Oliver.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Special provisions as to certain non-county boroughs.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, after "any," insert ': such."—[Mr. Oliver.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions for adjustment of rates payable in certain counties.)

Mr. EdeM: I beg to move, in page 19, line 22, after "standard," to insert "police.''
There are a number of other Amendments, a rather formidable looking list, to this Schedule which I hope can be considered with this one. This is the Schedule which was introduced in to the Bill to enable the escalator Clause to be worked. As worded when it was introduced in Committee, it involved the calculation of a notional police rate which would in fact not be the police rate that would be levied in the counties where a non-county borough had been absorbed into the county police force. The difference of more than 2d. in the £ had in consequence been made in the rating of the non-county borough. As worded, the Schedule would really restrict the county to levying a mathematically correct rate for the expenses that they would incur during the course of the year. No matter what the theory may be, it is, in practice, quite impossible to levy a mathematically accurate rate, which might involve calcu-


lations to two or three places of decimals, in order to make quite sure that the county balances were neither increased nor decreased as a result of the year's working.
These Amendments enable the county, in raising its police rate, to adopt the usual procedure of either absorbing balances, or possibly adding a little to balances, as a result of the actual working of the administration of the police fund during the year. The non-county borough which was to benefit, will receive exactly the same amount of benefit under the revised wording as it would receive under the old wording. There is the additional advantage that it will not be necessary in future in counties to have a separate police fund because inasmuch as the police rate will be levied over the whole of the county and not merely that part of the county which is outside the area having its own non-county borough police powers, it will be a general county charge, and not a special county charge to be levied only on part of the county.
9.15 p.m. 
These Amendments are an administrative convenience, which will not inflict any injury on anyone, and will confer considerable benefits on county treasurers and county finance committees who have to deal with the calculation of the amount to be raised in the county. I, therefore, hope that this Amendment and the ones which follow will commeno themselves to the House As the hon. Member for West-bury (Mr. Grimston) knows, this problem was raised rather late in the Committee stage. We inserted the Schedule so that we might have something on which to work. As a matter of fact, we had not had the final views of the County Councils' Association on the matter on the day when the subject was considered in Committee, and these Amendments have been brought forward in the light of the representations we have received from the County Councils Association, on whom the responsibility will rest of making the calculations and levying the rates.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, as also for the concession which he made in the Committee stage. So far as we on this side are concerned, we note what he says, and are glad to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 19, line 27, after "standard,' insert" police."

In line 31, leave out from "levied," to the end of line 36, and insert:
in that year by the rating authority for each of the county districts in the county for the purpose of meeting the expenditure of the county council for general county purposes; and the amount so ascertained in relation to any such district shall be taken to be the unadjusted county rate of that district for that year.

In line 37, after "standard," insert police."

In line 38, after "standard," insert" police."

In page 20, line 1, leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 2, and insert:
expenditure of that council for general county purposes.

In line 2, leave out from "shall," to "be," in line 3.

In line 5, leave out "current," and insert "county."

In line 7, after "standard," insert police."

In line 9, after the first "standard," insert "police."

In line 9, after the second "standard,'' insert "police."

In line 10, after "standard," insert "police."

In line 11, leave out "current," and insert "county."

In page 20, leave out line 12, and insert:
(c) in the case of the other county districts, the rate shall be the unadjusted county rate together with such additional.

In line 41, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Schedule. [Mr. Ede.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Transitory Provisions.)

Mr. Oliverm: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, at the end, to insert:
4. Where, immediately before the date of transfer, the watch committee of a borough, which ceases to be a separate police area by virtue of Section one of this Act were exercising functions under Section five of the Police, Factories, &amp; (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, or under the House to House Collections Act, 1939, then unless and until the Secretary of State otherwise directs that committee shall continue to exercise those functions in consultation with the police


authority for the county or the combined area, as the case may be.
This Amendment is brought forward by reason of an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in Committee, whereby the watch committees of non-county boroughs merged under Clause I should continue to exercise the powers which they exercised under the Statutes of 1916 and 1939 with respect to house collections and street collections.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

In line 23, leave out "foregoing provisions of this," and insert "provisions of the last foregoing." — [Mr. Oliver.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, at the end, to insert:

"9 &amp; 10 Geo. 6. c. 26.
The Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions)Act, 1946
So much of Pan II of the First Schedule as re to the Defence (Amalgamation of Police Forces) Regu1ations], 1942."

The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary, promoted certain schemes for police amalgamation in the South of England to deal with the situation that had arisen during the war. These Regulations have been continued in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, but Clause 13 of this Bill provides for their being carried on only until the appointed day, instead of until 31st December, 1947, which is the latest date in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act. Therefore, it is desirable that that provision should be repealed, and that there should be no doubt that the amalgamations remain in force up to the time when this Bill comes into operation. The police administration of those areas will be carried on under the provisions of this Bill and not under the Defence Regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Grimston: I do not want to allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words on the Third Reading. When it first came to the House this Bill gave the Home Secretary very wide powers. I would like to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of hon. Members on all sides of the House, for what the Home Secretary has done to meet us in limiting the scope of this Bill. He has not gone as far as we should have liked, but I do not want to let that limit the appreciation I express to him for the way in which he has met us. There is, however, one point which I do regret. That is that on Clause 1 we were unable to impress him at all. As the Bill now leaves the House, on a certain day every non-county borough which has a separate police force will, so to speak, suffer execution. Many of us think that it would have been much better had the Home Secretary followed the suggestion of the Select Committee of this House in 1932 and allowed these non-county boroughs of over 30,000 population to fall into Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill as it now stands.
We have had a long and fair discussion today, and I do not wish to delay the House now. I would, therefore, conclude by saying that I believe this Bill will be a useful instrument in promoting the efficiency of police forces. We have limited its scope in the direction that we wanted, but not so far as we should have liked. In view of the concessions of the Home Secretary, and the spirit with which he has met us during the discussion, we shall not propose on this side of the House to divide against the Bill.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. G. Lang: I will not detain the House at any serious length at this time, but I cannot allow this Bill to leave without saying a few words. On the Second Reading I criticised the Bill in some detail and expressed the hope that on the Committee stage it might be amended to make it more suitable, more palatable. It has been amended but not, I think, to any great extent to satisfy a number of us. In fact, as I have read, the Committee stage of the Bill has had a most unfortunate time. The Bill was damned with faint praise, and praised with faint damns from the start. Nobody seems to be very enthusiastic about it. At the end of the


Committee stage the Home Secretary held out this rather unwanted offspring, whose paternity I am not too sure about, and said it was really better that it should come in. Somebody courteously agreed but there was no great enthusiasm. It is absolutely unwanted, I believe, by anybody at all. As I see it, it is unnecessary, and, certainly, so far, no case has been made out for introducing it at this particular time. In view of the fact that the Boundary Commission will be reporting presently, it does seem to me that it might well have been held over.
There are two things that seem to have been mainly put forward as the justification for this Bill, and the first is the blessed word "efficiency." No standard of efficiency has been described, and perhaps none could be, but we have not been told what was the measure of inefficiency. One does not question for a moment that the Home Office police inspectors are thorough end excellent, but we are not told that it is upon the reports of these inspectors that these smaller forces are to be sacrificed. Does anybody really believe that the larger the aggregation, the bigger the force and the bigger the area, the more efficient the detection of crime? I can scarcely conceive that I could commit a crime, but, if I did, I would not attempt to commit it in Hyde or Stalybridge, but in this city, where I could do it with far more impunity, and far less chance of being detected. Even when all the forces of Scotland Yard here have failed to lay a murderer by the heels, we, in some cases, have caught their men for them and despatched them to the Central Criminal Court. It is much more dangerous to commit a crime in these quiet areas, than it is in these enormous aggregations.
I see no case for efficiency made out under this Bill, which is now to receive its Third Reading. In my constituency, we are to lose our two borough police forces—not a very cordial vote of thanks to give to those people for having sent me here to support this Government, nor any great encouragement to the electors, who, in the one borough, have completely captured the council for the party to which we belong, and in the other, have made themselves equal to the combined opposition. Never was an enlightened electorate so truly rebuffed, and I am quite certain that if I had asked the

electors to send me here to abolish their police forces, the House would have been deprived of my presence.

Lieut.-Commander Gurncy Braithwaite: Did they send the hon. Member here to abstain when it came to a vote?

Mr. Lang: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member mentioned that I am stained just now, because I will never interfere in other people's business, but, surely, if the Opposition could leave things alone in the case of vast and important matters like the American Loan, I may leave alone a matter like that Clause. I was saying that these two non-county boroughs of my constituency will lose their police forces, and I greatly regret it, because they are efficient and competently managed, and they have, I believe, proved themselves efficient. I greatly regret this loss of power and this loss of patriotism in localities. It is said that it is parish pump politics. Well, what is wrong with that? When our men are far away on the battlefield, they do not think of Scotland Yard. With great respect, I suggest they think of a village home—

Mr.Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure,-but I think he is talking about an Amendment which has not been accepted. If so, that is out of Order on Third Reading, when he may only discuss what is in the Bill and not what has been left out.

Mr. Lang: I am greatly obliged, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I accept your Ruling, I really was not discussing that Amendment, but was talking on the Bill, which deprives my two boroughs of their police forces. We are steadily pushing forward to larger aggregations, and I do not like it. Conscription, control and the removal of these local powers are all bad things. We are regimented enough, we are pulled about enough, we are remote enough from real home contacts, and I hope that that will not continue. I do not like the Bill and I am quite unable to give it my support. If it comes to a Division I will be obliged on this occasion to cast my vote against the Bill.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Stubbs: I welcome the opportunity to make a few observations with regard to this Bill and particularly in regard to the Clause re-


garding representation on the police committees. I want to deal with the position of Cambridge. Whilst accepting the Bill, my county council strongly object l to the representation laid down in this Clause. The amalgamation was accepted, and negotiations have taken place between the borough council, the county council and some department of the Home Office. I am not sure, but I think the Home Secretary has seen representatives from our county council on at least two occasions, and in conference before Christmas the Home Secretary agreed upon the representations submitted by the county council. He said that the new police committee would consist of an agreed number of members, half of whom would be appointed by the borough council and the other half by the standing joint committee of the county council, the borough representatives to include a number of representatives appointed by the Senate of the University as provided for under an Act of 1856. To the amazement of the standing joint committee and the borough council watch committee, the Home Secretary has run away from that. He says that the borough will have to accept an alternative proportion of representation, namely, 10 members from the borough council, 10 from the standing joint committee, and five nominated by the Senate of the University. Under the Act of 1856 the University have five members sitting on the borough watch committee. They are not appointed by the electorate but by the University.
Under this new arrangement the county council is to have a much smaller representation on this committee. My county council think that it is manifestly unfair, and that it is certainly undemocratic. This scheme, of course, for the purpose of representation has been based on the various populations. If we take the 1931 census, which I think are the only reliable figures, it shows the population of the county to be in excess of that in the borough. On account of the extension of the borough boundary, however, the population has passed beyond the figures in the 1921 census and the borough now has a population of 70,169 and the rural districts a population of 69,835.
It will be appreciated, therefore, that while the population of the borough is slightly in excess of that in the county, the population in the "county borough

contains 4,000 or more students who will be represented by [he five members appointed by the Senate of the University Thus, from 4,000 to 5,000 university students, who are inhabitants of Cambridge for only about six months in the year, will have five representatives. Surely that is contrary to democracy and is wrong. Everybody will agree that that is not fair representation. The other inhabitants of the county, who are about 69,000, will have altogether only 10 representatives I would ask the Home Secretary whether he would be willing to add just a few lines to the Clause to provide as follows:
 Under any scheme as aforesaid, the number of representatives of the county borough of Cambridge shall not exceed the number of representatives of the council of the county of Cambridge.
Our county council would be perfectly satisfied if my right hon. Friend would do what I am asking We shall, in any case, at some other time, press for an Amendment of this kind in order to remove what we consider to be essentially an injustice.
It is a far cry to go back 90 years to 1856. A lot of water has flowed down the river Cam since then. We get these undergraduates for only about six months in the year. It was very clever of the Home Secretary, but he did not give us any reason for what he did. After all, we have to have special arrangements in Cambridge, because the Senate had a provision in the Act of 1856. What for? To keep the undergraduates quiet? Is that to be said of people who come from good homes, and ought to know how to behave themselves? That is what those arrangements are for. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but if the ordinary workers in Cambridge were to do some of the things which the undergraduates do, they would be brought before the bench. If the Senate at that time had a scheme to deal with discipline I fail to understand why they now need five members upon the watch committee to deal with something for which they say they provided. It is not only that; these five members deal not only with undergraduates but play a part in the general administration of the council. They are not elected. They are on a property vote. We have got a long way from "One man, one vole." Those people directly represent the University. Perhaps the Home Secretary would give us an assur-


ance on this point, because the University will get more out of this than they ever anticipated- They will have more representation than they anticipated, and certainly more than that to which they are entitled. If the Home Secretary will add those words which I have suggested, the position will then be satisfactory to my county council.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: As one who wishes loyally to support the Government, I find myself in a certain difficulty with regard to this Bill in so far as it deals with the position of the larger non-county boroughs. This Bill takes the police from every single non-county borough, except in the case of a non-county borough which may achieve county borough status. In doing that, my right hon. Friend applies exactly the same standards to any non-county borough, whether it is a small borough of 10,000 inhabitants or a large one of 70,000 or 80,000 inhabitants.
I would like to say a word or two about the major local authority which I represent—the borough of Accrington. We hope that, as a result of the Report of the Boundary Commission, we may find that we have a population of perhaps 70,000 persons. In other words, we will not be up to county borough status, but we will have a substantially larger population than a considerable number of county boroughs. Nevertheless, our police are to be taken away from us with no further ado, whereas a county borough will either be able to keep its police or will be able to make a satisfactory arrangement for amalgamation. No wonder the people of Accrington are disappointed by this Bill. They take great interest in their local government. I can give an example of that, in that at local government elections we have a poll of from 70 to 75 per cent. Every member of the town council is against this Bill, and it is not a case of party interest. Labour, Liberal and Conservative are equally against it. Indeed, even the police themselves have submitted a memorial asking not to be handed over to the county council.
May I say a word about the position of local government generally? There seems to be an idea that only the larger units of local government are suitable for

efficient administration; by this, I mean the county councils and the county boroughs. In my opinion, that is not the case, and it is not the size of a borough which matters but the spirit of the people and the calibre of the representatives whom those people elect. If we continue nibbling away and taking these things from the non-county boroughs—one year we take education, the next year we take the police, and the third year we take something else—the people will cease to have that interest in the administration which it is so desirable they should have. It will be a bad day for this country when we cannot retain the interest of the people in the small local authorities where they are closely bound up and allied to the councillors whom they have elected
On the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend promised to consider any reasonable Amendment which might be put forward, but, although the Bill has now gone through the Committee stage and has reached the Third Reading stage, we are in exactly the same position as We were on the Second Reading. On the afternoon of the Second Reading I was a loyal member of the party although I was not at all happy about it, and voted for the Bill. Tonight I cannot do so; in fact, I must take the opposite course. This is not a party question; it is not, in my view, a political question: it is an administrative question purely and simply. It is a question of tidy administration balanced against the wishes of the people. I am all in favour of tidy administration, as one who has had something to do with administration Nevertheless, as one who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people, when there is a clash between tidy administration and the wishes of the people, in my view tidy administration must, if necessary, take second place.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I am glad to have this last minute opportunity of making an appeal to the Home Secretary to see if he could not make some modification of that part of the Bill which abolishes the status of non-county boroughs as police authorities. Though the right hon. Gentleman has shown, I understand, a very helpful manner during the day, I am afraid he is perhaps of a too determined and unchanging disposition to give me much


hope that tonight he will have second and wiser thoughts. I think we all applaud and agree with the Home Secretary in his determination to have the maximum efficiency in police forces, and we realise that he must take drastic action against those forces which do not come up to his standard of efficiency. We all recognise that some of the very small forces cannot be efficient and, therefore, must be amalgamated. We also all realise that the easiest way of dealing with that is the way he has chosen, to abolish the status of non-county boroughs of all sorts, regardless of their size and regardless of their standard of efficiency. I suggest to him that that labour-saving device, so far as his Department is concerned, may not be very admirable from the point of view of the country. It would be worth while involving his Department in the extra labour of making an inspection of those forces which were not efficient, and only taking power away from the local authorities who did not have efficient police forces at the present time.
I realise very well that the town which I represent is not typical in many respects. However, the same conditions do apply to many of the larger non-county boroughs whose future, as far as the police force is concerned, is threatened. I only speak of that town because I know the conditions there. It is a large seaside resort, where the main industry is that of providing holiday facilities for workers of all classes, and a very important industry it is. I suggest that that does require perhaps rather different and specialised handling by the police, and a more tolerant attitude in certain respects than might be suitable for an industrial town. Moreover, that town—and no doubt similarly with many others—is very remote from the capital town in which the police authority will reside in future, namely, about 70 miles away. In future, presumably instead of having a very efficient chief of police we shall have a more junior official who will have to refer his decisions to a more distant authority, thereby depriving the town of some of the efficiency it has at the present time.
The final point I would like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that there really ought to be a very considerable improvement in efficiency to justify diminishing the powers of the local authorities. I suggest that may have very unfortunate results I

agree with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliott) said on that point just now. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that already he is looked upon with rather lukewarm favour by non-county boroughs, in view of the considerable part he took in belittling their position at the time of the Education Bill. The taking away of police and other powers does diminish the status of these places, and if we do that there will be a great risk that the most responsible and ablest of the town's officials will tend to look elsewhere, where they think there is greater scope. Further, we shall tend to see the ablest and most responsible citizens, whom we want to take an increasing part in local affairs, become discouraged and give up to attend to their own business. This diminishing of the status of the larger non-county boroughs may have very unfortunate results for the country as a whole.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I believe that this Bill is a better Bill than it was at the time of its Second Reading in this House, and if the Home Secretary had taken the advice of some of us who have tried to help him during its progress, it would have been a much better Bill even than it is tonight. We sought to improve the Bill by not removing from the local authorities that measure of pride which is necessary, and those important -functions which they need to have to perform if men of good will and spirit are to continue to take part in local government. I was hoping that during the progress of this Bill we might at least have made one improvement in local government administration which I think is long overdue. I refer to the continued existence of standing joint committees.

Mr. Speaker: That is not in the Bill. We can discuss what is in the Bill and nothing else. We cannot discuss what we should like to see in the Bill now; we have passed that stage.

Mr. Jones: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, standing joint committees are still in the Bill, and I was hoping that we might have removed them. I think the day of standing joint committees has long since passed. We should provide some new method of governing police forces in this country. With the passing of this Bill my right hon. Friend had an


opportunity to provide for it much more extensively. He has provided for joint police authorities, and I suggest that he could have improved this Bill far more by abolishing standing joint committees and providing for watch committee powers for all the joint police authorities.

9.54 p.m.

Major Symomls: I have no wish to detain the House long, but in view of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) about Clause 17, I feel I must say a word to correct some of his misapprehensions. Unfortunately no Member representing the University is here tonight, and so I must try to say a word for both borough and university. In putting forward the case which he did, my hon. Friend used census figures. These, unfortunately for him, were out of date. He did not mention the fact that the latest available figures show a considerable advantage in favour of the borough as against the county, 79,000 population as against 72,000. I have no wish to stress that, because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, realising that populations may have readjusted themselves to some extent during the war, has decided to call it fifty-fifty and has offered equal representation to the borough and to the county. As regards the idea that this proposed authority is undemocratic, I would point out that the hitherto existing authority for the county which my hon. Friend represents has been only as to one-half an elected body. One-half has been nominated. On the authority proposed to be set up under this Bill there will be 15 out of 25 elected members. In other words, on the new authority the majority of the members will be democratically elected.
Then as to the proportion of the University representation, as things are at the moment, Cambridge University has five out of 15 on the watch committee. In future, under the new authority, it will have five out of 25. In other words, the proportionate representation of the University has been considerably reduced. My hon. Friend made great play with the fact that the Cambridge Award Act has existed since 1856 and argued that, therefore, it must be bad. I have

no wish to defend it on account of its age. I am not concerned with whether it was passed in 1856 or 1756 or at any other date. I am supporting it because it is a practical working proposition at this moment. It has worked and is working well, and it is accepted as such both by the borough and the University. It is assumed by my hon. Friend that the University representative must be in the pocket of the borough. I think that is a quite unjustified assumption, and as my fight hon. Friend has given the borough and the county equal representation under this Bill I should like to thank him for it. I feel he has done the best that could be expected in the circumstances.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Mack: I rise, a very nervous and worried man, because I have on this occasion to defend policemen, and I do not like police-men on the whole. Almost from my earliest years they have been a source of misfortune to me. In school the teacher made us learn pieces of poetry, and I have not liked poetry since. He asked us to select a piece of poetry descriptive of the career we should like to choose. I thought, then, that it would be fine to be a policeman, because as a policeman I could boss people about and be important. I read out:
 I should like to be a policeman, and flash my bullseye out,
If there were not so many thieves, and naughty men about.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite young at the time. My teacher was a rather robust personality. He said I ought to read it with more emphasis and put some action into it, to show that I should really like to be a policeman. So I read out again:
 I should like to be a policeman and flash my bullseye out," —
and I flashed my fist out and struck the eye of the pupil next to me. He emitted a terrific roar, and I was thoroughly castigated. From that time I have always been very respectful to policemen, but I have not liked them, except in individual instances. Nor do I like lawyers. There is some affinity between them and police-men.
As regards the present situation in relation to this Bill the Home Secretary, if


I may use the word without offence and if he will not misunderstand it, is a most deceptive man. He is deceptive in this sense: he is so benign and benevolent in countenance. I like the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I like him. But I do not think that in this Bill he has been as generous and understanding as he might have been. London today is a burglars' paradise. More swag is being appropriated as a result of the so-called police regulations, in London, the greatest city in the world. It is not my case now, however, to criticise the police for that. What I am concerned about is the effect of the Bill on my own borough. My borough was represented for many years in this House by no less redoubtable a figure than Josiah Wedgwood. I should like to invoke the shade of Josh Wedgwood at this moment. I am positive that if he had been in this House now there would have been some fundamental alterations in this Bill. If it had not been for the personality of Josh Wedgwood, my borough, of which I am proud, which is progressive, and which has a charter 700 or 800 years old, would have been incorporated in Stoke-on-Trent. No more terrible fate could possibly befall a borough than that. It was saved on that occasion, but now the Home Secretary would appear to be making depredations, because we have a population of only 70,000. When the Boundary Commission gets to work—and I understand there will be a lot of roving by the gentlemen who will make inspections—we shall probably have a population of 90,000. I understand it has been computed that we may even attain the status of 100,000. It is then that we shall begin to become a county borough. We are being fobbed off by the Home Secretary who tells us, that when we are a county borough, our problem will be solved. We are concerned, however, as a non-county borough with what is to be our status.
There has been some talk about civic pride. I deprecate references in this connection to politics. When all is said and done there are towns in this country which take great pride in their civic administration and I believe that to be one of the fundamentals of good government. No Government can maintain its reputation, unless it has behind it municipalities which take a pride in their administration, with men who work with-

out remuneration for long hours, giving of their best. I submit that my borough is an example in that respect. We have all political parties represented, Communists, diehard Tories, and Liberals. They are all united in a desire to maintain their own police force in Newcastle-under-Lyne. I say, quite frankly, that if we are to be put into a county, these people will be prepared to put up a fight. There may be a safeguard in the appointed date of 1st April, when events may happen to enhance our status and give us the possibility of becoming a county borough. But we are apprehensive about this matter.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has acted in a dual capacity in this House in that he has also done excellent work on the educational side. I commend to him the principle of excepting districts under the Education Act for the purposes of this Bill and I ask him to allow retention of police forces in cases where the existing forces are efficient. There are only three towns which are in a special category, Chesterfield, Luton— which will resolve itself into a county borough by virtue of its population of 100,000—and Cambridge, which I mention with reserve, because it has universities and riots and so on. My right hon. Friend cannot roam about every constituency, and I would not like him to do so, and besides I am not sure that he would be a good judge of the efficiency of police forces. But he will have other people roaming about—perhaps they will be called judges or inspectors of constabulary—who will advise whether the police are efficient or not. The fact remains that the police force of my borough is very efficient. I ask my right hon. Friend therefore to give consideration to it, and to remember that I am voicing not only my own point of view, but, what is even more important to the House and to him, the views of the whole population of the town in saying that they are determined to retain their police force.

10.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have reached the last stage of this Bill, and I would like to thank the hon. Member for West-bury (Mr. Grimston) for the opening words of the speech which he made on


Third Reading. This Bill, as he quite rightly said, and as has been demonstrated by this Debate, puts a strain on a good many party loyalties. When we were debating the question of non-county boroughs in Committee, no Labour Member voted against me, but one of the hon. Member's hon. and gallant Friends voted with me, and it was quite evident that there were some divisions on that side of the House as well as on this side. I would like to thank the hon. Member also for the helpful way in which he dealt with many of the Amendments in Committee and again today. I think that we can say that, although feelings have run high, the Debate has been conducted at each stage of the Bill with good temper and clear statements on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), made a few ecclesiastical comminations—I would not dare use the word he did, because I am quite sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule it out of Order if it were used by anyone not in Holy Orders. Apart from that, he questioned the paternity of the Measure. Despite all that has been said about this child tonight, I claim to be its one and only father. When I became Home Secretary there was no Bill. There were not even the heads of a Bill, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will agree that there were none when he left office.
Therefore, I stand quite unashamedly to defend this Measure as it is now presented to the House for Third Reading. I say quite frankly that it is a better Bill now than it was when it was introduced. After all this House exists for government by discussion, and I hope that in all the controversial Bills which it has been my misfortune to submit to the House during my career as a Minister, I have always shown willingness to listen to people who differ from me. I have endeavoured to see that any Measure which has left this House represented the best of the views that have been put before the House. This Bill I say is better now than when it was introduced because of suggestions made from both sides of the House which I have found possible to incorporate, without destroying essential principles.
No one except the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde himself has ever suggested that Stalybridge should remain

a police authority with less than 30,000 people. It is the hon. Member's own ewe lamb, for whom nobody but himself has shown the slightest affection or respect. With regard to the other borough of Hyde, it only became a police authority by mistake.
As regards the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds) respectively, I met the representatives of the borough, the county and the University on two occasions each. I gave no positive pledge to any of them. What I said was that I would convey to the other parties what each one said. I was warned that if I got them inside the same room together, the combined police force in their areas would not be sufficient to control the resulting disturbance. It is true that no one got out of this all he wanted. That is not unusual when there is compromise. But I was faced with the fact that Cambridge has this Act of 1856, which ensures to the University five seats on the police authority. It differs from Oxford in this, that the police have jurisdiction throughout the whole borough, whereas in Oxford, a place where I understand there is a University, I am told that the police jurisdiction does not extend inside the portals of some of the colleges, and judging by the products I can well understand that. I was assured that nowadays there is a complete understanding between the borough, the University authorities and the undergraduates, which is a distinct improvement since I was an undergraduate 42 years ago. But discipline of a residential university in a comparatively small town like Cambridge does present difficulties when the police force have as large powers and as circumscribed powers as they have in Cambridge, and it would be necessary, in my view, either to put the University into some fresh, extraordinary position with regard to discipline, or to arrange that the University should be represented on the police authority.
Therefore, I decided to put into the Bill on the Committee stage that arrangement whereby the University will have the number of representatives on the police authority to which the Statute of 1856 entitles it. I do not believe that on every occasion the representatives of


the University will vote with the representatives of the borough. In fact, there must have been a very considerable change in the relationship between the University and the borough since my day, if it is likely to happen on very many occasions, and I should have thought that the sound rule laid down by the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) in "Tantivy Towers '' should hold:
 They who mix with County
Must do as County do.
I cannot help thinking that on many occasions the University will find itself more attuned to the county atmosphere, than to the borough atmosphere. I am certain of this that no other arrangements for the policing of Cambridge than that which I have placed in this Bill, could be expected to work, without asking the House to set up some new police disciplinary authority for a residential university, and that I am quite sure all sides of the House would be reluctant to do.
We have had several speeches from hon. Members representing non-county boroughs. They have spoken very resolutely and loyally for the non-county boroughs which they represent in the House. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) has overlooked the fact that the county boroughs which he cited as being smaller than his non-county borough are not very likely to survive under the instructions which the House has given to the Boundary Commissioners. I have to point out to the House that, since 1888, with the exception of Hyde, where a mistake was made, no non-county borough has been granted police powers, and it has been the consistent policy of the House to reduce the number of non-county boroughs enjoying police powers. At no stage during the passage of this Bill has anyone suggested that any non-county borough not now possessing police powers should be granted police powers. Except for the 47 specially privileged non-county boroughs out of a total of 226, outside the Metropolitan police district, no one has suggested that a non-county borough ought to be a police authority.
With regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Mack), I have taken special precautions in the Bill to preserve for non-county boroughs the right to become police authorities the moment

they receive county borough powers. On that day they will have all the rights, duties and powers of a police authority. I think that should be a sufficient acknowledgment of the desire I have that this vast, vague national police force, fears of which rather oppressed the House on Second Reading, is not a thing that I desire to see, or which I imagine any Home Secretary in the future will wish to see; but in spite of what the right hon. Member for North Leeds said earlier this evening, we have to provide a police force to meet the needs of today, and not provide a police force that might have been adequate for the circumstances of 50 or 60 years ago. We have to face up to the resources that are available to modern criminals.
May I say here that I do not accept for a single moment the criticisms that have been made of the Metropolitan Police Force or the state of crime in the Metropolitan Police District, as compared with other parts of the country. The Metropolitan Police Force always has very particular and peculiar difficulties to confront, but without saying that it is better than any other force, I say there is no other force in the country which is better than the Metropolitan Police Force. I would like to feel that it is the first among a very considerable number of equals.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). There are many places under a county police force which have to face, and face efficiently, all the problems that confront Scarborough. Worthing is one. I was there only a week ago, and can say that it is a place to- which trippers occasionally go. Worthing was first under the West Sussex county constabulary and is now under the temporary joint police force for the County of Sussex, and I am sure that no one there feels that they are worse looked after by the police than are the people of Scarborough. As a -last word I would repeat that I believe that local government in this country has to adapt itself from time to time to the changing needs of the people of this country. What may have been a good and efficient layout 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even under the Act of 1929, will need adjustment periodically as facilities for travel improve, and as the circumstances of our times alter. I


believe that this Measure—which will enable the new police authorities to consider how much they can advance police administration by voluntary amalgamation—is one means by which local government in this important sphere will be able to adapt itself to the changing needs of the populations it serves.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have watched this Bill closely from its inception and I willingly join in thanking the Home Secretary for what he has done to improve it. I believe that when it first came before us it was susceptible to a great many improvements. Upstairs the Home Secretary met us, listened to our arguments, and accepted many suggestions which were made from all sides of that Committee and have now been embodied in this Bill. There is only one streak, or possible hint, of ingratitude in the very few words that I wish to say about the Bill in its last stage. It is that, in all these matters, whether they affect local government, police, or the community through the intermediary of local government, there is a danger that the Minister responsible may have to involve himself in private conversations with representatives of local government. Those conversations, in themselves, bind the representatives who meet him to secrecy. We all know that that is essential, but there is a grave danger that it may be carried too far, and that, after consultations with only a section of those representing local government, their feelings and their opinions may be taken as fully representative of all others. Legislation is therefore hurried through the House—I am not imputing anything whatsoever against the Minister—on the assumption, which may not always be correct, that it will be acceptable to all those affected. The truth is that all those affected may not have had sufficient time to examine the effects of that legislation.
The only note of caution I would utter, whilst thanking the Home Secretary for what he has done, is that should he come before this House again, or should the Government come before this House again with Measures such as this, they should, if possible—I am not claiming anything unfair—give more time for the consideration of the proposed legislation. Fair consideration should be given by all

those affected, before the Measure comes before the House and in all its stages, not only the first stages. After all, we represent the electors of this country, and it is our duty to protect the electors who sent us here from the too rapid passage of legislation through this House. I think the Home Secretary has dealt with us very fairly in this case, stage by stage. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department have had a great deal of additional work, because a little extra time was not given, in the initial stages, to consideration of the effect 01 the proposed legislation. As a private back bench Member of this House, I think it my duty to say that I feel there is very grave danger in hustling legislation through this House—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can discuss the Bill and what is in the Bill, but hustling legislation through this House is not in the Bill. This is not the Second Reading.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir, but as a result of the steps that were taken and the efforts—the very gallant last-minute efforts—made by the Home Secretary, it was necessary, in one respect at least, to recommit this Bill this afternoon in a manner which would, I believe, have been unnecessary—because I know the Home Secretary's intentions were perfectly correct—if further time had been given to the consideration of the effects of this legislation at an earlier stage.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ESTIMATES

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates: Mr. Kirby added.—[Mathers]

DONINGTON PARK (DEREQUISITIONING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I wish to bring to the notice of this House a matter the gravity of which affects the wellbeing of a great number of industries of this country, and the welfare of millions of


people. Time and again the President of the Board of Trade has told us that we must push forward with our export business in order to maintain the standard of living of our people. In fact, he has told us that we need approximately to double our exports over the figures of 1939- Some of the most important industries concerned in our export business are the motor car industry, the cycle industry, the motor cycle industry, the tyre industry. All these industries depend upon racing tracks for their improvement and development. Since Brooklands has been disposed of, there is only one racing track left in this country that can be used for this purpose, and that is Donington Park. At present, Donington Park is in the hands of the military authorities, and, time and again, representation has been made to the military authorities to release it. It seems, however, that once the military authorities have their grip on anything it is very difficult to make them loosen their clutch.
I accompanied a delegation to the War Office some weeks ago and we were interviewed by the Under-Secretary of State for War. We put our points to him. Lord Brabazon was there, Earl Howe, representatives of the motor car industry, of the motor cycle industry, representatives of the A.A., of the R.A.C., of the Cyclists Union—all very important bodies in this country—but we could get no decision from the Under-Secretary of State for War about Donington Park. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary the correspondence I had had with the War Office in the case of Donington Park, because it happens to be in my division. The only objection they could raise was that the Department had spent a lot of money on the park, and for that reason they said they could not release it. They could not find any other reason at all for holding on to the park. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary that we should forget the money spent on war, and remember only what we have to do to restore our finances and our trade. We cannot do that by looking back on what has been spent before; we must look to the future.
The motor car industry stated emphatically that they could not improve or develop cars without an adequate racing track. They used to have this track where day after day they could do their racing and help to bring their manufactures up to the highest pitch of develop-

ment. Without an adequate circuit this cannot be done, and it must be a circuit where there is no danger to the public, because the cars race at a terrific speed. By means of these speeds, it is possible to learn where the stresses and the strains are, what developments have to be made, what the final outcome of a car will be. Not only that, but without an adequate track, we cannot take part in international competitions, and among those I must include the United States. We must have a track on which drivers and cars can practise, and we must not forget that when we have a winning car in these international races, it is a great advertisement for our products. When a car has won an international race the products of that firm go up by leaps and bounds People have seen the car win the race; they say it must be a good car, and they buy the products of that factory on the argument that if it produces winning cars, it produces good cars. Another reason for having a racing track is that it is necessary to train good drivers. They must get experience on a track. Without that experience, you cannot expect men to win races, no matter how expert they are or how courageous they are. They must have that experience in order to keep up the production of our cars, which, in turn, means the selling of more of our cars for export, to bring in the needed foreign exchange.
There is not only the necessity for tracks for cars, but there is the question of tyres. It really is shameful that while our Empire has the greatest output of rubber in the world, yet our tyre manufacture is small compared with that of the United States. The United States have had to buy their rubber from our Empire, yet their tyre output is abnormally greater than our own. It is only on the racing track that tyres can really be tested. A representative of the tyre industry told the Under-Secretary that they could not compete in the world markets with their tyres, unless they had every opportunity of trying them out on the track.
Apart from that, before the war no cycle in the world had a higher reputation than the British cycle. For this branch also-a racing track is necessary. Donington Park used to have races every Sunday before the war. Now what will happen? Cycles will have to race upon


the roads to the danger of the public, while everywhere throughout the country one sees on hoardings the warning "Beware of accidents on the roads." "What are we to do about that? Are the military going to retain their hold on Donington Park? If so, it will put hundreds of thousands of cycles on the roads which ought to be on the track.
I am told that the military authorities are considering to a certain extent the desires of the factories and producers of cars in this respect. They say they are going to release the track but keep their hold on the park. They are speaking of spending somewhere about £100,000 on this venture. That is only throwing good money after bad. We want them out of the park altogether. We want the park to be returned to its owners, the people of the centre of Britain. The park itself was a great centre for picnics—a great centre of entertainment for millions of people from Rugby, Birmingham, Derby and all those centres, who used to converge on Donington Park to spend their weekends and afternoons. In 1938 and 1939, years of international races, over 86,000 people attended each race. Between 25,000 and 30,000 cars assembled at the park on those afternoons. In the course of the year over 500,000 people attended the races in Donington Park. This means in Entertainment Tax Duty between £5,000 and £10,000 a year which the Treasury are now losing by the military holding on to Donington Park. I say to the Government, "If you give us back Donington Park, you will be restoring a great deal of finance to the Treasury." Think of the buses going in and out, the trade developed by the park, and all this up building of a great centre of entertainment. This is apart from the fact that Donington Park is a lung for the industrial centre of Britain, and the only lung there is. The military are taking away this health-giving lung from the people who are building up export industries for this country.
I would like to show the difference between the way we are looking after our exports, and the way the Germans before the war looked after theirs. They did not starve their industries- of racing tracks. They subsidised the racing tracks. And what was the result? German motor cars went all over the world—the Mer-

cedes and the Opel—and only because they gained their reputation by their cars winning races, because they had the tracks and the experienced drivers. Give Britain the track, and Britain will give you the winning drivers and cars, and then we shall win the exports. It is not that we have not skilled mechanics and drivers. We have them, but they lack experience. In some of the German races, competition was driven to such a height that half a million attended a single race. That is the way the Germans before the war developed their export trade, and we have to go along the same lines.
We must not starve the nation of tracks; we must subsidise tracks, help to develop car speed and put our cars in front of anybody else's. It must not be forgotten that it is the reputation of the car that sells the car, and nothing gives a greater reputation to a car than the propaganda gained by winning a race. We here in Britain, when we see British people winning races, forget all about party politics and feel a pride in that accomplishment of our people. We are asking for a very small thing. We are asking the Government to let us have back Donington Park. Let the military authorities find a dump somewhere else for their cars. Some of the cars have been there for four years and more, without any reason at all. Since the agitation has been on foot, they have actually been bringing in more cars; some have come from Aldershot and Portsmouth, and up to the end of the year there were 9,700 cars there. I submit that it is up to the House to say that we should have Donington Park back again; then we shall have winning cars back again.

10.40 p.m.

Commander Noble: I am glad to be able to say a few words on the need for the return of this track for testing and racing cars. At the moment there is no place where the products of the motor industry can be tested, and it is a fact that British cars must be thoroughly tried out, if they are to capture the export market. As my hon. Friend has said, motor racing is most popular on the Continent and abroad, and racing has a direct bearing on export. It resulted before the war in the selling of many cars. Britain is planning a strong programme of car manufacture,-but it is essential that there should be a track on which to conduct experiments


and research. I hope that Donington Park will be released in the near future.

10.42 p.m.

Group-Captain Wilcock: As one of the members of the deputation which visited the Secretary of State for War, I support my hon. Friend in his appeal for the return of Donington Park. Apart from the racing interests, there were representatives of outdoor organisations on that deputation. Surely, now that the war is finished, and spring and summer are coming on, we have a right to one place in the Midlands to which our people can go for outdoor recreation. There is, in this district, no other place like Donington Park; in fact, there is no place in England like it. I went to see what the difficulty was about moving these Army vehicles. I could see no difficulty in moving them, although there was some question of hard standings. Let them be moved to some of the aerodromes which are not now being used. Why this property should be retained by the Army is a mystery to all of us. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us that Donington Park is now to be cleared of all M.T. vehicles belonging to the Army.

10.44 P.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: We hear a good deal of talk about research nowadays, and I hope it is realised that we cannot have research unless we have facilities for testing things out and, in the case of cars, for testing them out at speed. Speed is the method by which engines are tested under conditions which cannot be provided on the roads of this country. As a result of such tests, you get reliability. That is obtained from racing methods on the track. We have lost Brooklands and we are looking forward now to the day when we can again have a track for racing and testing. This country has always been handicapped in competing with foreign cars, especially Continental and American, because those nations had facilities which we did not possess. We were handicapped at the start of the motor industry because the French had achieved speeds which we were never allowed to attain, which put them in front of us, and it took us years to come up to them. We have, of course, special cars built for this purpose, but I am not going to say anything about racing

facilities as such. I am concerned with facilities which will enable the designer to test new designs and construction far more thoroughly than he can do it in the ordinary workshop, or on the road itself. We were able in the Schneider Cup race, and in other directions, to obtain speeds in front of the ordinary needs of the country, and so were ready when the emergency arose. Only by similar methods can we hold our own in motor development, keep our place and get better cars both for civilians here and for export.

10.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I hope the House will believe me when I say that the War Office has every sympathy with the case presented to my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State, by the deputation which visited him, and by those who have spoken tonight. But this case differs from the majority of cases which are presented for the derequisitioning of properties held by the Service Departments. This is not a case where the owners of the property have asked for derequisitioning. It is a case in which a third party has asked for the property to be given up, and that third party was clearly indicated by the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Follick), when he spoke tonight. Although the hon. Member made play with the desire of thousands of people in that area for the return of Donington Park to some of the recreational purposes, for which it was used before the war, I think the main burden of his speech was to the effect that this racing track within a private park is desired to foster the export trade in motor cars. Obviously the War Department, which holds this property, has got to take cognisance of that point, which is a very substantial one, and I think the hon. Member for Loughborough, who was a member of the deputation which visited the Under-Secretary of State, will agree that at that interview, and in subsequent correspondence, the War Department showed willingness to be helpful. I hope, before I sit down, to prove that such was the case.
The policy adopted by the War Office in regard to properties it has requisitioned, is to derequisition them according to priority. In view of the arguments put forward tonight, I regret to say that



Donington Park has a low priority. Our purpose at the War Department is to re lease those bypass roads and housing estates which facilitate the housing programme of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. And this park, although, no doubt, it would if derequisitioned fulfil the purpose for which it was partly designed, namely, the testing of racing cars, and tyres, on the racing track, will not stand up to the test that we first apply in derequisitioning, namely, the highest priority in the national interest. Perhaps I ought to tell the House what Donington Park is being used for by the War Department because

Captain Crowder: Can the hon. Gentleman say what rent the War Department is paying to the owners?

Mr. Bellenger: No. I have not that information at the moment. Of course, I can ascertain it if the hon. and gallant Member puts down a Question, but I do not think it is germane to the argument that I am putting before the House.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: It may be germane if the War Office are paying the owners a rent with which they are fully content. That may be the reason why there is no pressure to derequisition.

Mr. Bellenger: That is not the argument at all. There are other arguments why the owners may not want the property derequisitioned as much as do the other parties, but that is not the burden of my argument tonight in my effort to convince the House that the War Office cannot derequisition this property, I fear, for some considerable time. Donington Park is the Army's biggest and best vehicle reserve depot, having approximately 10,000 load-carrying vehicles. My hon. Friend gave what he considered to be some indication of the decreasing value to the War Office of this park, but I have to inform the House that there is an average weekly turnover, in and out of Donington Park, of some 1,500 vehicles. Although I agree that the amount of money the public have spent on Donington Park during the war—some £264,000—is not an argument for keeping this property in military hands, nevertheless one cannot ignore the fact that a considerable amount of public money has been spent on it in the national interest, which happens to be represented by the War Office.
Both on the occasion when the deputation met my Noble Friend and in correspondence, we have indicated to those who are agitating for the release of this property, in whole or in part, that the War Office will consider any proposition that the promoters of the agitation care to put up, if it is consistent with the necessity that we must retain it for some time. In that respect a proposal was put up to Earl Howe, to whom reference has been made by my hon. Friend and others, that the War Office and the other parties should use Donington Park jointly. Those proposals were not satisfactory, to us at any rate, and we have made counter proposals. These, I am afraid, would involve considerable capital outlay, of which I am not at all sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would approve. Nevertheless, we are prepared to present those proposals to the Treasury if we can get agreement with the other interested parties. With that end in view, we have approached the Society ofMotor Manufacturers and Traders, who, we think, represent more fully the interests mentioned by the hon. Member for Lough-borough, and have put certain questions to them on the answers to which we may be able to base our decision. Those questions have not yet been answered. We have not yet received any reply from what we consider to be the representative organisation, although we sent a letter about a month ago, or probably a little less. No doubt it is under active consideration, as we say in this 'House, but the fact remains that we have not yet received any reply. I do not know the reason why they have not replied, but until-we do receive a reply, I suggest to my hon. Friend, and to the other hon. Members who have spoken, that we cannot come to a decision.

Sir P. Bennett: The Council meets tomorrow.

Mr. Bellenger: I am glad to hear that and hope we shall receive a reply to the letter we have sent. In the meantime I suggest to my hon. Friend who initiated this Debate, and others, that they should allow the conversations to proceed as they were proceeding. If it is possible to get some scheme on which we can agree for the joint user of this property, we shall do our best to help those who want the release of this


property. I am afraid it is out of the question that we shall be able to release the whole of this property. Therefore, we have to fall back on the next best alternative, which we think might be a joint user of this property, though that will present considerable difficulties to the War Department and I have no doubt also to those who have initiated this Debate tonight, Further than that I cannot go. I hope I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend and those who support him, that the War Department are not retaining this property for any insubstantial reason, but because we really need it in the public interest, and I am afraid we may continue to need it for a long time. On those grounds, I regret I am not able

to give any more definite reply tonight, than my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State was able to give to the deputation, but in conclusion, I would repeat that we are willing to help, if it is at all possible.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman say what alternative sites he has considered to take the place of this Donington dump?

Mr. Bellenger: We have considered every alternative presented to us, but op to now we have found no suitable alternative.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.